Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Evolution sounds pretty smart. How does it know when it’s advantageous to use morals, and when it should go with the baser instincts?

[/quote]

You really need to read up on evolution. It is evident from your posts that you do not understand the mechanisms of natural selection.
[/quote]

Hey, I’m just going off what the evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists have been claiming evolution is responsible for. [/quote]

Weak cop-out, Cortes.

if this; “evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists” is directed at me, then could you please do us all the service of pointing out where I have claimed that the process of natural selection gives perfect results every time?[/quote]

Pay attention.

I never said you said that. In fact, you stated multiple times that evolution is not perfect.

But then, you also said the following:

Problem is, what you are presenting, as it applies to morality, is not science, it’s faith. And with the fervor that you guys take your pre-ordained, sacrosanct conclusion and then bend all your premises to the breaking point to make certain they never stray from that worldview, well, Evolution (PBTH) starts looking more and more like a religion.

I have been trying to show this for post after post now while you and krsoneeeee feign ignorance to what I am clearly indicating while, ironically, peppering your replies with haughty little book recommendations and supercilious accusations of our ignorance.

The thing I find most amusing, or, perhaps, sad, is that you demand PROOF and EVIDENCE for anyone else’s assertion of religious belief, while you cannot show a single shred of PROOF for your own convictions. And the “evidence” can only ever be used to explain why your conclusion is true.

562

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

Well I think you’ve constructed a very simplistic view which works for you, ands that’s cool but it doesn’t mean its true - For example, the above references to “instances”, you pointed out inconsistencies on how civilizations have evolved independently.
[/quote]

Uh, no, that’s not what I was pointing out at all.

[/quote]

What? were you not pointing out the aztecs, nazi’s, stalins “evil” acts? I kinda read between the lines…

Just because a behaviour is bad or immoral doesn’t mean it didn’t put someone at an advantage. IE- people will do what advantages them whether its moral or not. IE IE - behaviour can be independent of a moral but its doesnt mean the morals arent there. IE IE IE behaviour can be independent of morals(free will) but morals are dependent on evolution. game set.
[/quote]

This is why I don’t like arguing with you. Look at what you said. It’s right there above this text, quoted for you. You didn’t mention anything about evil acts. You said evolved independently. Now you are amending it to fit what I was actually talking about, but you act like that’s what YOU were talking about the whole time.
[/quote]

You’re stuck on the word independent… You said “what was wrong with evolution, was it broken?” - I was merely pointing out each of those civilisation’s independently evolved(whether you had intended to point it out or not). More importantly though - which you conveniently cut out of the quote - the next part of that sentence…

     "but thats EXACTLY the whole point of evolution, that different area's and people/animals will evolve in an advantageous way to suit their situation. AND that classical conditioning is a prime example of this and in fact supports it."

BUT, now that you know whats going down…discuss away(on the whole topic not just this post) -

I think I got you on this one so far.

563

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The thing I find most amusing, or, perhaps, sad, is that you demand PROOF and EVIDENCE for anyone else’s assertion of religious belief, while you cannot show a single shred of PROOF for your own convictions. And the “evidence” can only ever be used to explain why your conclusion is true.

[/quote]

I gave an example…to which you replied with some bullshit about civilisations - that had no relevance or logically comparability…All your replies do are pick out inconsistencies in our grammar…youre a clown.

564

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I read much, read 3-4 hours a day. Not sure what you’re getting at, or is this another ad hominem. You can refute a bunch of stuff in the Protestant Bibles, I would guess if you pick up a Protestant Bible there is about 2000 mistakes. However, never came across one in the Catholic Bible (with the right credentials).[/quote]

We get it, you’re a Catholic groupie. Go hit on a Pastor and calm the fuck down.[/quote]

Catholic groupie…because I don’t have the time to search the entire bible and all books that my have something to refute in the Bible I am now a Catholic groupie and a homosexual. Awesome.[/quote]

It seems you can’t miss any opportunity to say fuck you to protestants and advertise for your church.[/quote]

It’s being ironic, since Tib calls my Church the equivalent, I refer to his as a vampire…not necessarily evil, but looked upon as evil by the majority of society.

565

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
And, no. Logic is not a science. It a tool that can be employed by science. [/quote]

Okay, so philosophy is not a science, I should just scratch that off the list of sciences. Oh, okay thank you for letting me know. I’ll let the universities know. While we’re at we should probably scratch off economics since we can’t run experiments and it is based of logic as well.[/quote]

What the hell are you babbling about? You can run experiments.[/quote]

In all my time studying economics, I’ve yet to run one experiment, at least none that runs to real world results.

566

[quote]
Natural law via evolutionary processes can give us the facilities to decide right and wrong and derive an unchanging morality for our species. [/quote]

evolution may explain the finalities (we should say functionalities) of our genes. not the finalities of individuals
it’s not the same thing.

our genes “best interest” is to replicate and spread themselves. you can’t derive an unchanging morality from that. not even an utilitarian morality.

because the best evolutionary strategy is mass rape. and its blatantly immoral.

you can always say that this strategy would destroy civilization, and that it would be counter-productive.
but history proves that this is not the case in the long run.
see my Genghis Khan example.

when you attempt to derive morality from history (or natural history) you just side with the victors and the conquerors and end up proning some version of the right of the strongest.

morality start with civilization, and civilization is nothing more than a tool used to slow down or even avoid biological evolutionary processes and mechanisms.

morality start when you try and break the so-called laws of evolution not when you “follow” them.
morality start when you refuse to be Genghis Khan even if you know it would be
-easy
-good for you and your genes
-maybe even good for our specie in the long run.

maybe it’s an absurd and vain attempt, but at least it’s a sublime one.

now, it’s entirely possible to derive an unchanging morality from a science.
but then
-this science would not be evolutionism, but cultural anthropology.
-you would have to take the various faiths of humanity (and their underlying common structures) into account.
-you would end up with an utilitarian morality, at best. (a definition of what each and every civilizations should do to be civilizations)

567

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Because of the facilities given to us by natural law, we can perhaps transcend the evolutionary process and succeed at the biological imperative as well (continue life forever). So that means we can not only survive as a species but survive with high life qualities using a set of unchanging morals. Granted, that quality of living goes down if we say have WW3 or a giant asteroid hits us. If that were to happen, we might have to forgo certain morals to not forgo more important morals more often (choose the lesser of two evils).

Evolution led to sexual reproduction and selection which accelerated the rate evolution which gives many species an advantage. In a similar way, evolutionary processes ended up giving us the faculties to create culture. I feel culture is akin to sexual reproduction and selection in the sense that it can accelerate the rate of advancement of ideas that can improve our ability to survive and thrive. Now life is defined as having a metabolism and being able to reproduce. I feel that within the context of humanity, a decision is either moral or immoral based on its ability to produce creativity and certain acts always increase creativity regardless of circumstance and those types of decisions are what we call moral. Creativity in this context is defined as that which can help predict and control the environment towards the end of continuing the existence and quality of life long term.

[/quote]

I knew I didn’t quite get what I wanted to get across. What I wrote was done quickly and without enough thought, then when I did look at it, it didn’t come the way I wanted. I only recognized it after the fact. That’s why I made this post above. Also b/c of post Sloth made.

568

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m not saying evolution provided morals. Only that evolution gave us the sophistication to be able to create civilizations and be able to tell various kinds of historical counts through either myth or record or whatever that teach lessons that are always important for increasing humanity’s creativity (ability to for the species to continue and well-being for all).

569

[quote]
I’m not saying evolution provided morals. Only that evolution gave us the sophistication to be able to create civilizations and be able to tell various kinds of historical counts through either myth or record or whatever that teach lessons that are always important for increasing humanity’s creativity (ability to for the species to continue and well-being for all).[/quote]

yes, but you end up with an utilitarian definition of morality.

this morality basicaly states that “it’s right to do this or that because it maximize creativity”.
not that it is right or wrong per se.

it’s an hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.

you are left with nothing to answer to someone who say “i don’t give a fuck about creativity, so it’s not wrong for me”.

570

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I’m not saying evolution provided morals. Only that evolution gave us the sophistication to be able to create civilizations and be able to tell various kinds of historical counts through either myth or record or whatever that teach lessons that are always important for increasing humanity’s creativity (ability to for the species to continue and well-being for all).[/quote]

yes, but you end up with an utilitarian definition of morality.

this morality basicaly states that “it’s right to do this or that because it maximize creativity”.
not that it is right or wrong per se.

it’s an hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.

you are left with nothing to answer to someone who say “i don’t give a fuck about creativity, so it’s not wrong for me”.[/quote]

Two big thumbs up.

571

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
Can someone explain the whole “The Bible is not facturally correct but its the truth” really doesn’t make sense to me.

If you gave me a math book that had the followings sums:
1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=6

After that final sum I could’nt beleive anything else I read because I can prove its wrong. Surely the same can be said for the bible?[/quote]

Then all you have to do is point out where the Bible is wrong - That should be easy for a sharp guy like you.

From the get go the book is factually incorrect, we know we don’t all come from Adam & Eve, yet thats what is printed. So its not a fact that we come from Adam & Eve but that was what was written to make people at that time understand. How does that equal the truth?
Do it.
[/quote]

572

[quote]kamui wrote:

then your codes, even the better ones, are made of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical ones.
and these imperatives are relative to a specific population, by definition.

you’re speaking about a set of survival skills. not about morality.
and/or you are a relativist.

the single most successful man, in evolutionary terms, is probably Genghis Khan. millions of people have his Y-chromosome haplotype centuries after his death.
by your definition, he is the best man who ever lived. and mass rape is morally ok ?

again,
speaking about morality in absolute terms require that you affirm the existence of objective values.
speaking about morality in naturalist terms require that you identify at least one objective universal value in Nature.

problem is that nature is made of facts, not values.

values are, by definition, subjective and relative.

saying that there IS some objective and universal values (like absolutists do) is an act of faith. [/quote]
great point

573

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
Can someone explain the whole “The Bible is not facturally correct but its the truth” really doesn’t make sense to me.

If you gave me a math book that had the followings sums:
1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=6

After that final sum I could’nt beleive anything else I read because I can prove its wrong. Surely the same can be said for the bible?[/quote]

Ever exaggerated a story to get a point across? Ever used a metaphor? Ever get pissed off when people are too retarded to realise that you exaggerated and you really didn’t “beat his face in.” Okay, that is the simplified version. For 1500 years we basically had one Bible, then a lot of Bibles started having errors in it. Then we started having Fundamentalist show up and really screwed things up. So, now it seems that 75% of the time, I have Fundamentalist, Evangelical Literalistic Atheists arguing with me. Then they realise that I’ve never believed something they are arguing against, and I’m not evading the question. The Catholic Church has a much stronger (we had a lot of research time for debates) base for argument in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I’ve yet to see something wrong be pointed out in the Bible without finding some kind of reasonable and logical (this is the fact, when they use facts) explanation refuting the previous claim. A big reason for these ‘mistakes’ is because of typographical errors in certain copies of the Bible. However, a quick glance and in the Hebrew Bible will clear things up. [/quote]

I like your answer however its just not enough for me. I will keep reading though.
Thanks for taking the time to answer me.

574

[quote]Rza UK wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
Can someone explain the whole “The Bible is not facturally correct but its the truth” really doesn’t make sense to me.

If you gave me a math book that had the followings sums:
1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=6

After that final sum I could’nt beleive anything else I read because I can prove its wrong. Surely the same can be said for the bible?[/quote]

Ever exaggerated a story to get a point across? Ever used a metaphor? Ever get pissed off when people are too retarded to realise that you exaggerated and you really didn’t “beat his face in.” Okay, that is the simplified version. For 1500 years we basically had one Bible, then a lot of Bibles started having errors in it. Then we started having Fundamentalist show up and really screwed things up. So, now it seems that 75% of the time, I have Fundamentalist, Evangelical Literalistic Atheists arguing with me. Then they realise that I’ve never believed something they are arguing against, and I’m not evading the question. The Catholic Church has a much stronger (we had a lot of research time for debates) base for argument in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I’ve yet to see something wrong be pointed out in the Bible without finding some kind of reasonable and logical (this is the fact, when they use facts) explanation refuting the previous claim. A big reason for these ‘mistakes’ is because of typographical errors in certain copies of the Bible. However, a quick glance and in the Hebrew Bible will clear things up. [/quote]

I like your answer however its just not enough for me. I will keep reading though.
Thanks for taking the time to answer me.[/quote]

No doubt, Semper Fidelis

575

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.

[/quote]

LOL, very transparent way to try to get out of proving the Bible is wrong. If you’re not up to proving that the Bible is wrong why don’t you go ahead and explain electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery to me. Some think that those things are so outlandish that they can’t be real. At least the ignorant think that way.
[/quote]

The difference between electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery and the central claims of the Bible is that electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery all have results and/or evidence of their existence or efficacy that can be observed, tested and repeated.[/quote]

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t think I had to explain the comparison. You see the things above and the Bible have in common this: Simply because they are not understood by someone (or large groups of people) does not mean that they are to be laughed at mocked, or simply dismissed. This may come as a surprise but humans don’t know everything. WOW—you okay? In fact it seems that science changes every few years. Remember pluto? Enough said?

As far as God, Christ and the Bible I’ve said many times that it takes faith. As the Bible says it is impossible to please God without faith. If someone sets out to prove the existence of God it will only end in frustration as faith is the key ingredient. I don’t suspect that the Bible would put so much emphasis on faith if it was going to be proven by human standards that there is a God. That would be contradictory now wouldn’t it? At that point I would be questioning the Bible and the rolls here would be reversed.

On a side note, how old are you? I read an interesting article about atheism and young males. Seems that about 90% are young males. Just wondering if you fall into that demographic. No big deal.

Zeb

576

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I am saying that NOBODY, EVER has proven that there once lived a guy named Jesus, who was the son of God, who was killed on a cross and subsequently resurrected, and who now lives in a wonderful place called Heaven. Nor has anyone ever proven that a place called Heaven exists, or that a place called Hell exists… or any of the other outlandish claims of the Bible. [/quote]

Well, hold on now, in my above comments I was talking about the existence of God. Not that Jesus Christ lived. Jesus is as much an historical figure as Plato. As you know Christians believe that he was the personification of God on earth. That can be debated by non-Christians, but his existence, that’s a fact!

577

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Brother Chris,

Do me a favor. The next time you take mass, save some stool samples for the next few days. I will gladly pay to have them analyzed.

If upon examination of your stool sample, it is evident that you consumed human flesh, I will immediately convert… no lie. I will immediately convert to catholicism. [/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation[/quote]

Yes… that is exactly why it is so funny… a classic example of religion attempting to substantiate one of its more absurd claims. [/quote]

Well, we all can’t be of the Darwinian dead of Scienatheiology. Someone has to build families and propagate the species. [/quote]

I’m not sure what this - “Darwinian dead of Scienatheiology” - means… But, I’ve done my part. I’ve got two sons, so there’s a pretty good chance that my genes will persist.
[/quote]

That means I was re-editing an edit, and still mangled it. Basically, I was teasing with the idea of religiosity correlating with higher fertility rates (above replacement), children tending to adopt the faith of their fathers, and the idea of having the better evolutionary survival tools for the survival of a specific sort of population.[/quote]

You may be right about this… my only hope is that the time scale of evolution is vast enough that us atheists will eventually win out.

578

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Natural law via evolutionary processes can give us the facilities to decide right and wrong and derive an unchanging morality for our species. [/quote]

Those processes select the population best suited for reproductive success in an enviroment. So, as the environment changes. so might the facilities. And as the facilities change, so might the “morality.” And, always, the despot in no less using his ‘facilities’ than the pacifist.

Now, ‘the survival of the species’ is hardly helpful. Survive in what state? Of what quality? What’s that matter to the old man going into oblivion? Sure, he sired a couple of bastards in his day, between prison terms. But, he could care less about them, much less some future generation.[/quote]

This is where the real questions begin. It almost deserves its own thread.

579

[quote]kamui wrote:

then your codes, even the better ones, are made of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical ones.
and these imperatives are relative to a specific population, by definition. [/quote]

I think that the imperatives of which I speak are well established enough to be considered theoretical, not hypothetical… some would say their existence is now a proven/discernible law, but I tend to keep my options open.

[quote] you’re speaking about a set of survival skills. not about morality.
and/or you are a relativist. [/quote]

Yes, I am speaking about a set of survival skills, which is exactly why I am not a relativist, or an absolutist.

[quote] the single most successful man, in evolutionary terms, is probably Genghis Khan. millions of people have his Y-chromosome haplotype centuries after his death.
by your definition, he is the best man who ever lived. and mass rape is morally ok ? [/quote]

let me rephrase that in a way that doesn’t make it appear that I condone rape; He was perhaps the most successful man to ever have lived. Now, this requires that the clock of evolution stops ticking today… something that I think we can all agree would suck. I suspect/hope that the broader scale of continuing evolution will set him in a less influential context, that over time cooperative societies with respect for human life, dignity, etc… will prevail.

[quote] again,
speaking about morality in absolute terms require that you affirm the existence of objective values.
speaking about morality in naturalist terms require that you identify at least one objective universal value in Nature.

problem is that nature is made of facts, not values.

values are, by definition, subjective and relative.

saying that there IS some objective and universal values (like absolutists do) is an act of faith. [/quote]

Fortunately, I am not an absolutist or a naturalist. I’m not certain that any particular camp has been set up for people who think of morality the way that I do… I will confess that I haven’t spent any time looking for a term that defines it.

580

[quote]kamui wrote:

logic is the human science that study, define and formalize this tool.
[/quote]

I think we can just agree to disagree on this. It is the subject of decades-long debate at universities that we will certainly not settle here.