[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
:O[/quote]
OMG. Photoshop just altered my world view. If a fish and a banana have a common ancestor, there must be a God.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
In the view of a true evolutionist, hitler was not a bad person.
[/quote]
lolwtf? I guess it was only a matter of time before someone invoked Godwin’s law. After all, we are talking about evolution and religion here. 
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.
Gold.
I CAN say his actions were immoral because killing humans en masse with no good reason kinda runs contrary to our desire to breed and spread the species.
depends, some might call it removing waste from the gene pool, kind of like when a mother dog burries the runt or eats it after birth.
In the view of a true evolutionist, hitler was not a bad person.
[/quote]
You are now the new fail. How are Jews in general supposed to be waste? In EVERY race there are inferior genes, it’s not limited to one race.
The the view of a true evolutionist, Hitler would be a moron and waste of space for essentially wanting to remove variation from the gene pool.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.
Gold.
I CAN say his actions were immoral because killing humans en masse with no good reason kinda runs contrary to our desire to breed and spread the species.
depends, some might call it removing waste from the gene pool, kind of like when a mother dog burries the runt or eats it after birth.
In the view of a true evolutionist, hitler was not a bad person.
You are now the new fail. How are Jews in general supposed to be waste? In EVERY race there are inferior genes, it’s not limited to one race.
The the view of a true evolutionist, Hitler would be a moron and waste of space for essentially wanting to remove variation from the gene pool.[/quote]
My point is that if there is nothing else, I can’t see justification for survival of the species being any more “good” than it dieing out.
Hitler also practiced eugenics. Those were actually good for the species, so eugenics is a good thing, right? If you are justifying good and bad based on self preservation and a natural tendency to survive as a species, aren’t they completely moral and entirely desirable.
Without an ultimate justification of a moral standard, morals are entirely relative. Hence, we can’t judge Hitler.
When I say you, I’m speaking on general terms, not accusing you, sorry.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that if there is nothing else, I can’t see justification for survival of the species being any more “good” than it dieing out.
Hitler also practiced eugenics. Those were actually good for the species, so eugenics is a good thing, right? If you are justifying good and bad based on self preservation and a natural tendency to survive as a species, aren’t they completely moral and entirely desirable.
Without an ultimate justification of a moral standard, morals are entirely relative. Hence, we can’t judge Hitler.
When I say you, I’m speaking on general terms, not accusing you, sorry.[/quote]
But taking morals out of it, Hitler is still an idiot. If you try to “breed” a race of blonde haired blue eyed people, the end result is major inbreeding. Atrocities aside, removing a vast collection of varied genes from the gene pool is NOT serving the human race.
Yes, Hitler practiced eugenics. He also completely missed the point of it and ended up in a state of fail that will never be matched again.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that if there is nothing else, I can’t see justification for survival of the species being any more “good” than it dieing out.
Hitler also practiced eugenics. Those were actually good for the species, so eugenics is a good thing, right? If you are justifying good and bad based on self preservation and a natural tendency to survive as a species, aren’t they completely moral and entirely desirable.
Without an ultimate justification of a moral standard, morals are entirely relative. Hence, we can’t judge Hitler.
When I say you, I’m speaking on general terms, not accusing you, sorry.
But taking morals out of it, Hitler is still an idiot. If you try to “breed” a race of blonde haired blue eyed people, the end result is major inbreeding. Atrocities aside, removing a vast collection of varied genes from the gene pool is NOT serving the human race.
Yes, Hitler practiced eugenics. He also completely missed the point of it and ended up in a state of fail that will never be matched again.[/quote]
I completely agree, but you have to use morals of some sort to make that call. If there is no higher power backing up the claims of morals, the how is our set of morals any better than anyone’s in history?
Natural rights, morals, and love all imply that a human is more than flesh and bone.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Evolution is not about mass killings.
Don’t make me have to scrub my eyes after reading this crap.[/quote]
No but morals can evolve too, right to fit the needs of thesociety at the time.
It can be if it is for the good of the society. Don’t blindly appply your morals to a scientific theory.
All I was saying.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that if there is nothing else, I can’t see justification for survival of the species being any more “good” than it dieing out.
Hitler also practiced eugenics. Those were actually good for the species, so eugenics is a good thing, right? If you are justifying good and bad based on self preservation and a natural tendency to survive as a species, aren’t they completely moral and entirely desirable.
Without an ultimate justification of a moral standard, morals are entirely relative. Hence, we can’t judge Hitler.
When I say you, I’m speaking on general terms, not accusing you, sorry.
But taking morals out of it, Hitler is still an idiot. If you try to “breed” a race of blonde haired blue eyed people, the end result is major inbreeding. Atrocities aside, removing a vast collection of varied genes from the gene pool is NOT serving the human race.
Yes, Hitler practiced eugenics. He also completely missed the point of it and ended up in a state of fail that will never be matched again.[/quote]
And you think the natural path of natural selection or evolution doesn’t make any mistakes.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that if there is nothing else, I can’t see justification for survival of the species being any more “good” than it dieing out.
Hitler also practiced eugenics. Those were actually good for the species, so eugenics is a good thing, right? If you are justifying good and bad based on self preservation and a natural tendency to survive as a species, aren’t they completely moral and entirely desirable.
Without an ultimate justification of a moral standard, morals are entirely relative. Hence, we can’t judge Hitler.
When I say you, I’m speaking on general terms, not accusing you, sorry.
But taking morals out of it, Hitler is still an idiot. If you try to “breed” a race of blonde haired blue eyed people, the end result is major inbreeding. Atrocities aside, removing a vast collection of varied genes from the gene pool is NOT serving the human race.
Yes, Hitler practiced eugenics. He also completely missed the point of it and ended up in a state of fail that will never be matched again.
I completely agree, but you have to use morals of some sort to make that call. If there is no higher power backing up the claims of morals, the how is our set of morals any better than anyone’s in history?
Natural rights, morals, and love all imply that a human is more than flesh and bone. [/quote]
Very nice, the replies seemed to hint I insulted their God or something on that level.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You most certainly observe gravity and quantitatively measure it. [/quote]
Oh really? What does gravity look like? Obviously it is unobservable directly, but you can infer its presence by the effect it has on objects.
Sort of like the prayer study I mentioned?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point was, that without something higher, emotions and feelings are chemical reactions and nothing more. Even consciousness and life is nothing but a chemical reaction. Morals don’t exist.[/quote]
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
The difference is that you believe morality is based on some universal truth, and I believe morality is consensually defined.
I believe in love every bit as much as you do. Do you seriously think that people can’t value love to the same degree unless they think it comes from a supernatural source?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You most certainly observe gravity and quantitatively measure it.
Oh really? What does gravity look like? Obviously it is unobservable directly, but you can infer its presence by the effect it has on objects.
You can also run and design tests even with a control.
Sort of like the prayer study I mentioned?[/quote]
I don’t think you know what observe means. Yes, blind people can make observations. Yes invisible things can be observed, like electricity.
Gravity is the name given to a particular force. It is directly measurable and quantifiable. There are no units you can use to measure the existence of god.
If you can’t understand the difference between the 2 you need flip through a science book or 2.
There are so many logically flaws to the “experiment” you mentioned it’s ridiculous. Studies like that are anecdotal at best. There are way more variables than the existence of god. You are assuming so many things about god if he does exist. He would have to be listening, and good natured, and neglecting to those who don’t pray while helping those that do.
You can’t separate the 2 groups based on prayer to test for the existence of god because if he does exist he still exists in both groups.
Studies like that are stupid and have 0 scientific credibility.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point was, that without something higher, emotions and feelings are chemical reactions and nothing more. Even consciousness and life is nothing but a chemical reaction. Morals don’t exist.
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
The difference is that you believe morality is based on some universal truth, and I believe morality is consensually defined.
I believe in love every bit as much as you do. Do you seriously think that people can’t value love to the same degree unless they think it comes from a supernatural source?[/quote]
I’m saying love is false believe there is no god. If you believe in love it sounds like you believe in at least something spiritual.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Natural rights, morals, and love all imply that a human is more than flesh and bone. [/quote]
Not if a society consensually agrees that people have natural rights and share a set of common values.
You can value humanity without needing to believe in fairy tales.
It probably sounds strange to you, given your current world view. I did a lot of soul searching after realizing that my church was based on fairy tales, and remember deeply considering my core values.
If there is no “god”, why not steal, rape, murder, etc. as long as you don’t get caught? If there is no absolute morality, why not do whatever is in your best interest and fuck the idea of humanity?
At the end of the day, I chose to hold true to my core values. Why? Because I believe in them and desire the results that they produce in the world. They have inherent worth, without needing to be commanded by a supernatural being. They are, in fact, all the more meaningful because they come from within.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think you know what observe means. Yes, blind people can make observations. Yes invisible things can be observed, like electricity.[/quote]
Again, you’re talking about observing the effects of electricity, rather than observing electricity directly.
Regardless, you must see the analogy between observing electricity, observing gravity, and observing god.
If these forces are real, their effects on the physical world can be empirically observed. If they are imaginary, their effects don’t occur more than would be expected by chance alone.
The “god” being tested in this particular study was believed to be benevolent, omniscient, and responsive to prayers of faith. I think that is a pretty common concept, at least for most Christians.
[quote]You can’t separate the 2 groups based on prayer to test for the existence of god because if he does exist he still exists in both groups.
[/quote]
So you don’t believe god answers prayers?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m saying love is false believe there is no god. If you believe in love it sounds like you believe in at least something spiritual.[/quote]
Why does love have to be connected to a fairy tale? How about believing in the value of love to produce happiness, and as a force that is in the best interest of mankind?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Natural rights, morals, and love all imply that a human is more than flesh and bone.
Not if a society consensually agrees that people have natural rights and share a set of common values.
You can value humanity without needing to believe in fairy tales.
It probably sounds strange to you, given your current world view. I did a lot of soul searching after realizing that my church was based on fairy tales, and remember deeply considering my core values.
If there is no “god”, why not steal, rape, murder, etc. as long as you don’t get caught? If there is no absolute morality, why not do whatever is in your best interest and fuck the idea of humanity?
At the end of the day, I chose to hold true to my core values. Why? Because I believe in them and desire the results that they produce in the world. They have inherent worth, without needing to be commanded by a supernatural being. They are, in fact, all the more meaningful because they come from within.[/quote]
So you are admitting morals are relative without god.
You can choose that of course, I’m glad you do, but without god in the equation, you can’t fault someone else for abiding by their own morals.
If morals are indeed majority based, then quit bitching about not having gay marriage. The majority thinks it’s immoral, so that would mean that it is immoral by your definition. Like I said before you also can’t call the Nazis immoral by your logic.
If you think that gay marriage isn’t immoral despite what society says, you are arguing against your own beliefs. There has to be a universal human moral standard to, at this point, make the argument for gay marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think you know what observe means. Yes, blind people can make observations. Yes invisible things can be observed, like electricity.
Again, you’re talking about observing the effects of electricity, rather than observing electricity directly.
Regardless, you must see the analogy between observing electricity, observing gravity, and observing god.
If these forces are real, their effects on the physical world can be empirically observed. If they are imaginary, their effects don’t occur more than would be expected by chance alone.
You are assuming so many things about god if he does exist. He would have to be listening, and good natured, and neglecting to those who don’t pray while helping those that do.
The “god” being tested in this particular study was believed to be benevolent, omniscient, and responsive to prayers of faith. I think that is a pretty common concept, at least for most Christians.
You can’t separate the 2 groups based on prayer to test for the existence of god because if he does exist he still exists in both groups.
So you don’t believe god answers prayers?
[/quote]
I believe that you can’t quantitative measure and categorize how god answers prayers. If God’s answer were “no” in that study it would go down in the god doesn’t’ exist category.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So you are admitting morals are relative without god.[/quote]
I think that is probably the case.
That said, it is possible that “love” is a force that reflects one of the fundamental laws of the universe, without needing to believe that law is any more connected to a supernatural being than the laws of gravity and electricity.
Again, you don’t need to believe in fairy tales to believe the universe exists and operates according to a common set of laws.
Having internally derived morality doesn’t make it any less meaningful. I believe people should do whatever they want, as long as they don’t hurt others in the process. That value of not hurting others is fortunately shared by most of the rest of society, so we can consensually agree on laws that support it.
My personal morality doesn’t have to reflect the morality of the majority. On most points it does, and fortunately society is moving along nicely in supporting equal rights for gays.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m saying love is false believe there is no god. If you believe in love it sounds like you believe in at least something spiritual.
Why does love have to be connected to a fairy tale? How about believing in the value of love to produce happiness, and as a force that is in the best interest of mankind?[/quote]
Because without a god, good/bad/happy/sad/love are nonsensical terms.
You say best interest of mankind. How do you figure that? How do you compare one path of a chemical reaction to another and determine which is best? Best implies a moral standard. you can’t use yours because you’ve admitted it is relative. So, then who’s moral standard are you using?