[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.[/quote]
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.[/quote]
You only have to believe that other human beings experience the world much as you do and desire the same basic things. If you do not desire for yourself something you’d deny to another, you can derive all the morals you need from that basis.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.
You only have to believe that other human beings experience the world much as you do and desire the same basic things. If you do not desire for yourself something you’d deny to another, you can derive all the morals you need from that basis.
[/quote]
Desire the same basic things is where the problem is. Many people don’t value their own life, can they then freely take another person’s?
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.
You only have to believe that other human beings experience the world much as you do and desire the same basic things. If you do not desire for yourself something you’d deny to another, you can derive all the morals you need from that basis.
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Desire the same basic things is where the problem is. Many people don’t value their own life, can they then freely take another person’s?[/quote]
I’d argue that someone who doesn’t value his own life is either clinically insane and so irrelevant to this argument, or is currently in a situation he perceives as being hopeless.
Place him in a more welcoming setting and his basic needs will be the same as yours: Survive and care for his family. Things like pain, fear and hunger will be just as bad for him as they are for you. Hence, you can establish laws or a “moral code” that seeks to diminish pain, fear and hunger for all involved. A code that would help you protect and care for your family would be agreeable (ie, “moral”) to you as it would be to him.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else. [/quote]
And yet vampire bats have learned to share.
So, either they are deeply religious creatures, or, evolution can develop reciprocal altruism, i.e. partnerships, if not friendships.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Desire the same basic things is where the problem is. Many people don’t value their own life, can they then freely take another person’s?
I’d argue that someone who doesn’t value his own life is either clinically insane and so irrelevant to this argument, or is currently in a situation he perceives as being hopeless.
Place him in a more welcoming setting and his basic needs will be the same as yours: Survive and care for his family. Things like pain, fear and hunger will be just as bad for him as they are for you. Hence, you can establish laws or a “moral code” that seeks to diminish pain, fear and hunger for all involved. A code that would help you protect and care for your family would be agreeable (ie, “moral”) to you as it would be to him.
[/quote]
You are now classifying whose opinions are worthy of inclusion. What is your bases for judging the worth of an opinion?
[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else.
And yet vampire bats have learned to share.
So, either they are deeply religious creatures, or, evolution can develop reciprocal altruism, i.e. partnerships, if not friendships.
[/quote]
Once again, belief is not necessary for god to exist.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else.
And yet vampire bats have learned to share.
So, either they are deeply religious creatures, or, evolution can develop reciprocal altruism, i.e. partnerships, if not friendships.
Once again, belief is not necessary for god to exist. [/quote]
Well them his claim is simply not falsifiable, i.e. beyond the realm of science or just plain wrong as long as we want to stay within the realm of science.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else. [/quote]
It’s nowhere near as simple as you’re making it out to be.
What’s the advantage for an educated married man, with his own offspring to fend for, in risking death to save an elderly woman from a burning vehicle?
Or, why waste resources on keeping the elderly (no longer able to reproduce) healhty and alive, when they can be refocused on offspring?
These are the questions the world wants answers to. You each have 30 sec. to form a response. Go!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are now classifying whose opinions are worthy of inclusion. What is your bases for judging the worth of an opinion?[/quote]
There is no judgment of opinion involved.
You’re picking extreme outliers as being representative of “the average human”. Do you believe that not valuing one’s life is the default condition for the average human being?
If you could pool all 6.5 billion humans and ask them “is preserving your life important to you (yes/no)” and kept only the most common answer, what do you think it would be?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Would a child be better off if the parents gave it everything it asked for?[/quote]
I never suggested that your god should grant every prayer. What I did suggest was that unless your god does so at a rate greater than expected by chance alone, not only would it call into question the existence of said god, but there would be no value in worshipping him/her/it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that happiness, love, value, are are entirely relative without god.[/quote]
Just because people may disagree in what they value doesn’t mean they don’t hold to their morals just as strongly as you hold to yours, nor does it mean those morals are any less real.
Let me ask you a question.
Which do you think is more meaningful, more valuable, and more real:
Following a moral code out of fear of punishment by a god
Following a moral code out of desire for reward from a god
Following a moral code due to the inherent value of the code itself, and the positive benefits it brings to the world
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.[/quote]
Nor does belief in a god render that god existent.
By the way, even if you accept that morals have to be universal in order to be “real”:
Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
True and the problem with that is that basing probability on previous theories based on probability, from previous theories also based on probability, based on a few testable physical principles is a house of cards at best. The margin or error and uncontrolled variables involved in this process really makes this approach not as accurate or unbiased as you might think.
[/quote]
Despite your reservations, science has proven to be the best method for discovering and applying objective truth. It is a hell of a lot more reliable than praying to a fairy tale being.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not saying forelife doesn’t experience love, I’m saying he’s not as atheist as he thinks.[/quote]
I believe in love, I just don’t believe there is anything supernatural about it.
Saying love is nothing more than a chemical reaction is like saying art is nothing more than paint on a canvas. The human brain has the capacity to construct meaning and purpose out of something ordinary, and none of that requires supernatural intervention.