1. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50705 by nerdfiles on June 19, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I think they were debating over THE prevailing factor, not one of the many factors.

In any case, however, religious texts do give justification for many of the factors, and that should not be. I think you can gather this from the Jain vs. Muslim example Harris gave on merely one of the factors.

2. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #50685 by nerdfiles on June 19, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Any claim that "god did it" directly argues against the beauty of the constant emerging anomaly of nature and the beauty of human effort in nature. The point must be made that this is not "god's will" to plaster our planet with superficial images of himself, and the point also must be made that her talent is unparalleled given her age. To consciously see past the notion of god causing her art is to see quite humbly and mysteriously the beauty of nature that played a role here.

Insults towards and comments in defence of the subject matter are irrelevant. God is man-made; and man-made things can be beautiful. We should be grateful to the order of reason in all of this that we know quite simply that beauty does not necessitate truth.

Let's focus on that.

3. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50679 by nerdfiles on June 19, 2007 at 12:08 pm

How can they allow for Hedges to get away with espousing and spreading such blatantly FALSE claims?! The happenings or teachings or what have you of Christianity laid the FOUNDATIONS for ethics?

Are you kidding me?!

Are you seriously kidding me?!

He should be skewed and roasted on the spot for obviously LYING! He's completely denying the existence of the exact civilised thought the Romans had to conquer and thrash in order to propagate Christian ethics and morality! The ancient Greek philosophers were tackling issues of ethics and morality, justice, love, solidarity, the human condition, relationships and so many other topics which permeate through our apparent "Christian values system" hundreds of years before the supposed happenings of the bible; hundreds of years before the supposed HISTORICAL happenings of the bible.

I am SO angry! This is no SMALL lie. To lie to this magnitude and to be dignified with an audience should be INSULTING to ANYONE with a college-level education. Merely bringing up Plato or Aristotle resonates with a huge majority of the population, yet do people even REALISE they were existing and THINKING 300 to 400 years BEFORE the advent of Christian doctrine?

COME ON, PEOPLE!

Anyway, this Hedges guy dodges the true points, focuses on religious antagonisms BETWEEN religions, which is HARDLY useful, and describes a wishy-washy, amorphous, irrelevant and worthless god that could easily be equated to our capacity to imagine a better life, ethical system and morality for ourselves. In no way is he talking about the Abrahamic god. He's just correlating his lovey-lovey, personal feelings with his Postmodern, worthless definition of the deity--and not even the Christian deity at that. Then he goes on to PRESUME that all religions are actually aiming for the ill-defined deity he's barely described.

And this whole NON-rational, not irrational claim.

Again, are you kidding me?

This is EXACTLY what Harris is debating against. This presumptuous claim to knowledge. How EVER do you know what is or is outside the scope of reason and evidence? What better argument do these faith-heads postulate but "my god tells me so?" PROVE IT. Burden of proof. Prove this deity exists, and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, you'll have a chance at proving he cares enough about us to let us KNOW what we can NEVER know. If not that, they invoke the stance of intellectual cowardice, deeming things too difficult to understand are not worth understanding. RUBBISH. This sort of cowardly stance they PRESUME as humility, but they fail to realise it is trespassing on more fields of science than they can shake a stick at. You're presupposing a) that scientists are even making truth-claims and b) presupposing that there is something outside the scope of reason without using reason or evidence to prove such a claim. And even still, how can you claim there is nothing outside the scope of reason without using reason itself to judge as such? Do you use your FAITH to tell scientists what they will and will not accomplish?

LEAVE SCIENTISTS ALONE. LEAVE PHILOSOPHERS ALONE. You faith-heads do not have exclusive rights to the unexplored.

These people only feel "violated" because the status quo is being shifted out of their favour.

And I'm done ranting. This Hedges chap infuriates me, especially with his sermon-like speech. Granted this may be irrelevant, but at least Harris can be laid back and casual. Does Hedges really need to invoke the pastor character to share his thoughts?

4. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45188 by nerdfiles on May 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

"The fact that science/evolution cannot yet explain the origin of the universe and cannot disprove the existence of God logically means that you can accept evolution and be a theist at the same time."

Burden of proof. It is not the job of science to disprove unintelligible propositions which are illogical.

We can use our pure reason to do this. All Abrahamic religions, deisms, polytheisms, and monotheisms are false and illogical.

Do not lump tautology (logic) with science (evidence) and say that anything without evidence must be outside of logic. Reason and science can be two different things.

5. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44986 by nerdfiles on May 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Many people believe a lot of scientific theories, but that doesn't mean they actually understand them intimately the way scientists or the better reasoned do. Simply saying "I believe in evolution" doesn't mean much if you don't understand what it does for explaining the origin and make-up of intelligent life.

Evolution and creationism are fundamentally mutually exclusive theories which are absolutely incompatible. To say that someone can believe in evolution and Christianity (creationism) is saying that you grant them their latter belief true, and evolution can fill in the blanks.

Do not diminish, or I should go so far as to say insult, the austere and enlightening beauty of theory that is the scientific theory of evolution with rubbish compatibilism with the most inane of theories that is Christian science, ID, Christianity, any sort of theism, etc.. They are all rooted in good feelings, zero evidence, and most importantly zero reason.

And in any case, you do not BELIEVE in the scientific theory of evolution. You ACCEPT it as a truth pending--the best possible explanation.

You cannot accept the scientific theory of evolution and believe any sort of theism. No sort of colourful language, religious moderation, or religious tolerance will support the opposite claim. If we start blurring religion into science, then we've ruined scientific progress, especially with a theory as concluding and solidifying as the scientific theory of evolution.

6. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34660 by nerdfiles on April 24, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Nice article.

I like where this sub-topic of polytheism vs. monotheism is going; however, I must point out that it is a mere matter of coincidence that polytheistic African and American tribes were predisposed to a less-than-civilised civilisation. Their theistic views, I feel, have very little to say about how progressed they were as cultures. It is a matter of other factors such as geography and agriculture.

For all we know, it could've been the other way around, in theory: the missionaries could've been passing out pamphlets for the Greek pantheon while the native Americans could've been worshiping in some monotheism.

Granted, it's difficult to conceive of this hypothetical since the myriad nature of tribalistic cultures seems to necessitate a polytheistic view, but I simply ask that theisms in general be seen as not the cause of the becoming of civilisation but rather a very close component to another reason as to why cultures increase in their intellectual and civil progression.

7. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34310 by nerdfiles on April 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm

The "other gods" argument, though very true and absolutely worthy of earnest thought, isn't very potent, I don't think. It doesn't have that punch or kick that arguments such as the Epicurus Paradox or any evidence-based argument. I think Dawkins is right in using a culturally based argument against the existence of or belief in any specific god. It does a good service to the issue since it is primarily and absolutely cultural why people believe in any one belief. So counter that with more cultural counter-points. Using evidence-based, logic-based, or consequence-based reasons for the non-existence of god really just flies right over most peoples heads--that's probably why Dawkins never uses them very often.

Well, except for the consequence-based one... Though, you have to build a trust in the people to have them agree, and that trust will only come from clear, reasonable, unbiased thinking...

I think if Dawkins says it enough, though, it will resonate within the people. Maybe...

I don't feel this was a waste of time considering that all publicity is good publicity, and publicity for atheism is always good when it's the rock-bottom in the eyes of the people. For this country, atheism's got nowhere to go but up.

8. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33962 by nerdfiles on April 22, 2007 at 9:57 pm

This is another prime example of tabloid-esque, even amateur, journalism. They fail to truly understand the firmly stated nuance of Dawkins' and Harris' literature--failure to give justice to reason with earnest understanding. Maybe it's deliberate, maybe it isn't. In either case, it'll stop sooner or later once people become more mild to taking criticism, even on religious issues. They will read atheist literature for exactly what it is and not as some ploy or propaganda to destroy "human morality [based on whose exact religious standpoint]?"

The willingness to ignore the fundamental conflicts between religions is uncanny.

"enemies, militaristic, fundamentalism..."

What is with all this poetic language? Dawkins is fundamentally humanist. The theory of evolution is fundamentally humanist--it begs you to look at yourselves as a species for answers and explanation, not to look elsewhere, wherever that elsewhere may be.

"In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work."

All religions are fundamentally rooted in supernaturalism. I respect that the moderation of people within their religions cause them to be "less religious" in the sense that their societal condition teaches them not to be so damn religious and thus more socially acceptable, but I'll be damned if I will accept that while your religious text says cut off someones hand for so-and-so reason and you grant them due process that this has anything to do with "god" or the religious text itself.

Humanism, like someone mentioned earlier, is batty, ignorance feeble secular religion. Humanism isn't something we form a group out of. Humanism, like evolution, just happens.

It's amazing how easy to grasp this concept is, yet it seems to elude Harvard professors, among other well educated people.

9. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33714 by nerdfiles on April 21, 2007 at 10:30 am

"Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found."

Are we supposed to be there with t-shirts and "atheist" banners or something? It's not a mystery that scientific explanations for tragic events do not console many people, but to "explain" it with the meaningless idea of God [OR Allah OR Yahweh OR ...] does absolutely nothing for the matter. At a certain point, none of those people grieving are there as religious. Their mere presence there is out of their humanity. It has nothing to do with religion or their beliefs. It's a mere correlation of people being decent and the fact that they're religious, not that they're religious and their god woke them up that morning to go grieve. Because if that were the case, they'd be bickering and arguing and fighting over how best to grieve.

The religious can be so ignorant. And of all things, why point out any specific belief system? What purpose does this serve? It doesn't help or hurt anyone. This blogger is immature and an intellectual degenerate.

10. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #32194 by nerdfiles on April 16, 2007 at 6:18 am

I think that rejecting other religions "not in an arrogant way" statement by McGrath is superficially deviant, avoidant and self-doubting. He's trying to appeal to moderation so that his view is not likely to turn heads or state anything worth hearing--to duck from under the radar of criticism. However, it is not the highlight of his stupidity.

"I believe very passionately that Islam is seeking something with great honesty and great integrity, but I believe also Christianity brings to fulfillment that honest quest for truth and that actually that-that seems to me to be, uh, a respectful yet same time, for me, intellectually honest way of understanding the situation."
~Alister McGrath, Level 15 Sophist, Level 7 Theologian, Level 22 Karate Chop Christian

In other words, all other religions are false insofar as my own religion allows me to dedicate myself to them. But more specifically, mine is the most "intellectually honest." Thus, you have a profoundly superficially moderate Christian shedding his unbearably and heart-wrenchingly intolerant view under the guise of utter Sophistry and charisma.

My heart sank when he wrapped this bullshit intolerant statement up. It aches me to think under all that religious moderation (inclusive of ALL religions, as he quite eloquently states it in this quote), they fundamentally reject all other religions with something along the lines of, "I respect what you have to say, but you are wrong. There is no argument about that one."

Or, "I'd not like to say you're wrong but that I am true. To say you're 'wrong' would automatically connote negative feelings and argumentation. So let's just dwell on how remarkably true I am."

11. Einstein & Faith

Comment #32138 by nerdfiles on April 16, 2007 at 12:29 am

Atheists do not insist that we have common descent; scientists insist that we have common descent.

Science has nothing to do with arrogance. And it would to any scientist a great deal of virtue to be the most ignorant and stubborn he or she can possibly be when it comes to their exploration of scientific discourse.

Evolution is nothing more than a label given to an observation, deep-rooted in and founded upon the scientific method. It is science.

Science is nothing more than systematic observation. You cannot deny evolution without also fundamentally denying science because in essence the concept of evolution ties all other scientific theories together. But the theory of evolution is incomplete insofar as it has no practical usage; however, eventually it will allow us to understand, more or less, where we are going as a species.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are based on facts, and the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for a great number of years. If you do not agree with the theory of evolution, you either do not understand it or are too arrogant to.

12. Einstein & Faith

Comment #32101 by nerdfiles on April 15, 2007 at 5:08 pm

To coldly and totally reject the usefulness of religion is insulting to one's own intelligence. And by only seeing religion's faults is to do exactly that.

Religion is not to blame. It is arrogance, and anyone can be arrogant, regardless of cultural origins, ethnic background, geography, religion, nationhood... If there's one thing that can make an atheist look like a theist, it's arrogance.

13. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31811 by nerdfiles on April 14, 2007 at 11:35 am

Deism and pantheism differ in that deism proposes, in every flavour of it, a god which bears a will. Thus, you can presuppose a "divine watchmaker" or an uncaring omniscience who set things in motion. Deists can also presuppose a beginning to things, even if it is outside our understanding. But it is the mere intellectual arrogance of it that lumps a definite beginning (first cause) with the idea of merely existing. They conclude that since we do exist, reality must have started at some definite time.

Spinoza's pantheism rejects both of these claims, and I cannot submit that Einstein was a deist in any sense, as he makes clear not to subscribe to a divine or human will or a definite beginning to all things. Spinoza's God is a god whose nature necessitates existence and is rule-bound to its own nature, thus its essence constitutes order and existence from that order. There is no will in the deterministic nature of this divine essence whose only limit is itself. And Spinoza, as far as I've read, makes clear to point out that there is no reason why this god has not always existed. It pertains to its nature to exist, thus one can imagine its existence to be eternal and not bounded by our feeble conception of time. Bertrand Russell also follows this understanding of existence and "god."

These critical points separate Einstein's pantheism from deism. I say Einstein's pantheism because he subscribed to a variation of pantheism laid out by Spinoza (thus "Spinoza's God"), and a major aspect of his belief, which I think enhances the beauty of his humanity, is his religious-like inclination to perpetually allow himself to be awe-struck by the beauty of the apparent lawfulness of the universe.

Einstein and "atheists" find a conflict in that Einstein's humility to the beauty of this lawful universe forced him to perceive anyone not sharing his view as arrogant. It is arrogance that, as he saw, drove "atheists" to make assertions with the same magnitude as theists. I believe Einstein felt it much more intellectually honest and pure to simply look at the universe and not try to make any sort of claims about it beyond what you need to in order to understand it better. This is probably why he was stopped dead in his tracks when quantum theory knocked at his doorstep.

14. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31798 by nerdfiles on April 14, 2007 at 10:33 am

Dawkins isn't certain about anything but rejecting claims which are self-evidently wrong. He is certain religion is untrue with the same degree that you are certain you cannot fly or certain that intelligible, English speaking dragons with political agendas don't exist.

Often enough people fail to keep in mind the premise and background Dawkins is coming from--the background of a scientist. I find this puzzling since he goes to great lengths to explain that he is simply following what is evidenced. His language tends to be confrontational, so people assume he is taking the stance of someone of utmost authority when he isn't, and those offended merely instigate claims on his behalf.

It is a double standard to consider that when Dawkins says "I am certain about what is wrong because it has no reasonable or evidenced backing" it is incorrect while going about your lives not giving into any and every propositions made by anyone who claims to know the truth.

Untrue ideas are obvious. The idea of god and religion are simply those deep rooted in the human condition, so it's a bit more difficult to reject them because people feel they need ignorance. Admitting to and insisting that you require ignorance does not make your idea anymore true, and this is obvious. That is all Dawkins is saying.

15. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31697 by nerdfiles on April 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm

@Bonzai:

Whoops. I hadn't read your post. I'm not sure why I go on with the word "movement" and kept with it. Just a coincidence.

16. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31671 by nerdfiles on April 13, 2007 at 7:23 pm

"Atheism, to the average person, would be terrifying compared to Christianity."

Yes, of course it's terrifying if you base its nature on the same characteristics of certain theisms which necessitate a certain religious belief (or figurehead to idolise). But atheism is nothing like any sort of theism and is not in itself the opposition to theism. It is the refutation against what theism's arguments are and thus what it presumes as true. If religious never proposed notions of "god," we would all be atheistic not in the sense that we can be atheistic by today's standards. The entire matter wouldn't even come up. Thus, atheism is a response to and is dependent on the existence of theism.

To me, it seems like people have come to equate the "atheist movement," if you will, to the "communist movement," insofar as the atheist movement, in its purest sense, is set out on some sort of predefined goal. It is a grand misconception that Marx's utopia or Plato's republic are some sort of attainable goals--as if they are real potentials. They are not--it is the work towards these goals which is what these theorists were striving to make people aware of.

Just like with this "atheist movement" Dawkins appears to be leading, it is not something which has a definite conclusion. What Dawkins has stated on numerous occasions that he is "promoting consciousness." It is self-evident that religion is wrong, and he is simply making these facts clear. He isn't saying that we should revel in atheist ideologies (whatever that means) or atheist systems to lead our lives. It is not "comparing atheism to Christianity." It is understanding what is absolutely untrue and moving on from there with reason.

Dawkins is not promoting "atheism." Atheism is just a label given to those who refuse to accept unintelligible propositions riding on the back of arrogance, intellectual laziness, political agendas, and often times outright dishonesty.

17. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30560 by nerdfiles on April 8, 2007 at 5:44 pm

I deeply wish for this apparently growing buzz word to cease being used, by both sides the debate. It seems journalists, theologians and even some atheists alike are catching on to this "new atheism." As if "atheism" had shed it skins, so to speak, to breathe life into a new generation. It most certainly has not.

Atheism, as a response to theism, is just as old as theism. Atheism is the default stance for any human being. How can anyone with even an ounce of intelligence presuppose we are born with knowledge of that which has to be taught to us by the religious.

To say this is to suppose that we are born automatically with the awareness of knowledge of mathematics or physics or poetry in our minds.

And if that were the case, if we are born with inherent knowledge of "god," whose exact god are we born with inherent knowledge of?

In any case, it's all rubbish. And I digress; this "new atheism" term does "atheists," who must be described with this detrimental label by way of consequence of their adhering to reason, great harm. Sooner than later, the usage of such a term will then become "New Atheism" and we'll be The New Atheist Coalition of So-And-So Country--as if we were some organised movement with a creed, established gospel and all that other rubbish that defines a religious sect.

Atheism is not "new," and as someone pointed out earlier, what of Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not Christian?" Russell raised his own versions of counter arguments against the tired theistic propositions of design and morality and so forth. This was done no more than 50 years ago, and we atheistic thinkers today are simply keeping such refutations against unreason alive. The arguments against the "god" hypothesis and religion as a necessary part of culture and society are old and have not changed in their nature--they have simply found different perspectives by way of newer generations of thinkers.

We are those bound to reason, and thus we must be "atheists." We are not self-proclaimed atheists who then decided to pick up keenly on the chapter of evolution from our biology books.

I read a CNN article which also attempted to dub "new atheism," by equating it to antireligious thought, onto atheists of today. This is possibly another purposeful "mistake" on behalf of biased journalism. These writers deliberately fail to research and fully understand the nuances and history of atheistic and antireligious thought--thus they easily declare their popularity as "new" so they can pigeonhole those given to reason as something that does not warrant exploration. Thus, you're either A or B, theist or atheist, and so on, and everything in between isn't worth the time to understand.

18. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #28716 by nerdfiles on March 30, 2007 at 1:21 pm

McGrath is just being juvenile with his sense of reasoning and overgeneralisations of Dawkins' argument:

"For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?"

Dawkins is comparing specifically the belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy to the belief in God. He is not comparing the content of either of the entities. The point Dawkins is trying to make with that sort of comparison is simply belief in figments of our imagination should be removed. He is only referring to belief in things which maintain no evidence.

McGrath decides to pervert Dawkins argument by assuming that Dawkins is also comparing the content of "god" and "Santa" or the "Tooth Fairy." Why would Dawkins waste his time comparing entities which maintain no universal definition? It is not rocket science to understand that Dawkins is absolutely not comparing "god" with "Santa." McGrath is just playing a clever game of rhetoric.

People decide to believe in "god" as opposed to Santa because each character maintains a different scope of governance over our lives.

Santa has been constructed to be purely a childhood hero. And only during the month of Christmas celebration does this character ever come into discussion.

The Tooth Fairy has even less of a role in our adolescent lives.

This "god," however you wish to define it, is supposed to govern existence and the universe entirely, without proper justification, mind you.

In any case, it's easy to see why people don't randomly start believing in Santa in their adult lives. Characters like Santa were contrived to have a short lifespan within our belief. Characters like "god" were contrived to govern people completely, "without end," and so on.

McGrath may be able to woo moderates with his hand gestures and grace, but his arguments on print are amateur and riddled with logical fallacies.

19. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #22301 by nerdfiles on February 14, 2007 at 1:34 am

It's funny how instead of actually arguing against evolution, they argue against Dawkin's manner of expressing the argument.

What's funnier is I probably know exactly how Dawkin's feels most of the time when he's in situations like this... Actually, how most people who've read some sort of statistic feels.

It's like when you read a poll and report the data collected from the poll to a friend, and they form some opinion (after not really taking in what you've reported) that directly conflicts with the findings of the poll.

For example, I shared some dialogue with a fellow student today about this statistical data:

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

I simply reported that the U.S. is second to dead-last, and he was quicker to verbally disagree than actually take in what I said. He's a self-proclaimed atheist, yet he was still so quick to jump the gun.

The way I see it, Dawkin's credibility as a doctorate, professor, being from the U.K., having an English accent, being old...are not his key points for argumentation like all the theologians believe. He doesn't care, yet they think he does.... Anyway, sorry. The way I see it, Dawkins has all these admirable traits, but he's just reporting to these people what he saw in a book, so to speak.

He's basically saying, "I'm just tellin' ya what I read in a book."

20. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #15244 by nerdfiles on December 29, 2006 at 10:33 pm

Some feel that Dawkins feebly attempted to and surely failed at answering the question of the origins of morality. You must bear in mind, however, that Dawkins is a not a man who throws adjectives and adverbs around carelessly to describe what he adheres to as his beliefs. He surely addresses the difficulty and unsureness that we as a race endure when dealing with the origins of morality. I personally feel his answer was on the mark; however, my spin on it is a bit different and takes into consideration the workings of evolution.

Our morality itself has come into existence as it is today through evolution. It too follows a similar evolutionary path to that of our survival, and, without a doubt, the evolution of our morality can be said to have assisted in our survival. When Darwinians speak of evolution it should be understood that they also mean our morality. It, like our race, is a constantly expanding and changing thing, albeit more noticeably slower than our physical evolution. But that is arguable.

I came to this conclusion when I tried to explain the origins of morality to our friend, first stemming the conversation from Dawkin's initial notice that we cherry pick morality from the bible. And thus, morality could not have originated from such a source. Like Dawkin's and Darwinism profess, it is easier to accept simple beginnings, and so it is my firm belief that morality too evolved from simple beginnings. The story goes as such.

Picture a stone age setting: less intelligent, more ape-like peoples, on the dawn of "social organisation" and near the brink of establishing the first instance of a morality definition. Mind you, things are not as simple as this, but this is a microcosm of the grand scheme that defines the origins of morality. And so, these peoples are socialising, if you will, laughing, picking, grunting, in a group, yes, but as individual entities of the same group, until after a "few" years, they evolve the sense that things done individually could be better achieved with help. Theirs tasks can be better accomplished in groups, and working in groups requires at least some sort of loose cooperation. This story is probably redundant to most, but it sets the playing field for "morally good" and "morally bad" choices which inherently grow into the minds of the peoples within the context.

And so, people are cooperating--they've produced a crop field. Now, these people consider this crop field to be a "good" thing--not "good" by some general, arbitrary definition, but "good" because they know that tomorrow it will provide food for them. And it is not arguable that avoiding hunger pains is a good thing. The fact that the food exists to prolong life and avoid the pain of hunger is a good thing contextually speaking. And so, it can be said that if something were to destroy these crop, that would be a bad thing for those people because that would remove their food for tomorrow and introduce hunger pains. This is a fairly simple concept; and I use crop because throughout history and to this day, food is used to promote causes and keep the attention of the people. The simple concept of nourishment and avoiding hunger pains is the catalyst for the myriad faiths we co-exist with. One of the most notable long-running incidents is that of the conversion of the pagans. Hell, their all-star pantheon was easily "refuted" by Christian missionaries because hell, all the gods are made up for one, but most importantly because the Church simply said--"yeah, you get to keep your feasts, you filthy peasants whose only goal in life is to ensure his or her next meal is a reality. Here's your feast. Have at it. Oh? Saturn? Forget him. Try Jesus, and a drumstick."

I digress. I think you get where I'm going with this. It is easy to see how the destruction of our food source can be considered a bad thing. It is also easy to see how being unproductive can equate to being immoral. Destruction, causing harm, killing, breaking, being overly critical, and even being too unique and argumentative...when referred to generally can be seen as unproductive. And thus, things considered unproductive are things that are immoral.

After a number of millennia of our ancestors realising, evolving and determining what is unproductive and what is, a loosely defined moral law was construed. What was contextually considered "bad," became known taboo. And what was known taboo eventually became fully condemned. What was condemned became crime, and whatever was considered a crime in the most direct and simple terms eventually grew into a being morally bad. Our moral conduct originates from our own observation and necessity to avoid displeasing experiences.