The Real Consequences of Atheism

[revelarts]

Part of a response to an Atheist admission that
if atheism and naturalism is true then morals are illusory.



The Real Consequences of Atheism
Atheist: "So what if the earth is vaporized by an expanding sun five billion years from now, or we are all killed by global climate change, or famine, or polluted oceans, or some unknown pandemic? Will we annihilate ourselves with weapons of mass destruction? Or will we just all kill ourselves just to see what comes next? Sooner or later it won’t matter that we were ever here at all . . . and I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me whether we live five billion years or five. It will never be enough. The only thing you can do is live them as well as you can. Life is short. Life is meaningless. Life is delicious."

Kevin Harris: Welcome to Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig, from time to time in our daily lives somebody stands up and shouts, “Wait! Stop the presses! This is what it is all about.” What we have is a comment that I think is very telling from an atheist who says, “Wait a minute. Do you know exactly what it is that we are talking about? That is, the real consequences of adopting an atheistic worldview.” I guess, Bill, from time to time this might be kind of jarring because a lot of what I hear coming from the New Atheist and the atheist community is trying to be positive and have their own charities and be more organized and even have their own songs, and all this positive and giving and being in community in the midst of life just like everybody else.

Dr. Craig: Yes, exactly. They would say you don’t need God for all of those positive endeavors and so what difference does it make?

Kevin Harris: “We can participate in that as well as you religious people. We can be good without God, and all those things.” Yeah. We definitely agree with this. Then an atheist comes along and drops a big wrench in the works by making this comment. This is on Wintery Knight’s blog.[1] Let’s listen. he says,


"[To] all my Atheist friends.

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible."

Well, let's stop right there, Bill. Is that a pretty good synopsis?

Dr. Craig: Well, I think what he explains is the consequences of naturalism for moral values and duties. His claim is that if atheism is true then what we perceive to be moral values and duties are really just figments of our imagination ingrained into us by biological and social conditioning.

Kevin Harris: He goes on to say,

"We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population.[2] They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say."

There's the end of the quote right there.

Dr. Craig: The odd thing about this fellow is that he derides other atheists who choose to live nice, polite, civil lives. He claims that they are actually inferior atheists. I wonder if he actually thinks that the superior atheist is one who lives a sort of libertine lifestyle who will go out and have sexual intercourse with your neighbor's wife, steal, even murder if that serves his own purposes? He seems to think that the enlightened atheist really ought to just completely abandon any kind of moral code of behavior.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, and he says, “So what? Because we are just blips. We are just bags of DNA trying to reproduce. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. So why be politically correct and why are you guys trying to look like Christians? Why are you trying to look like theists?” Our friend Frank Turek says, “We sit in the lap of God in order to slap his face.” We are steeped in Christian heritage and culture in so many ways in polite society. He just really kind of lays it out there.

Dr. Craig: Right. This is one of the consequences of denying a transcendent source or grounding for moral values and duties. You are just left with the physical, material world. It is hard to find any sort of place in that for objective moral values and duties. It is very difficult to see where these would come from on a naturalistic worldview.

Kevin Harris: Bill, are we right to think that this doesn't show that atheism is false, but does it mitigate everything he's laid out here? Does it mitigate against our most basic intuitions to show that this just isn't right?

Dr. Craig: Well, I do think that that is a very good question, Kevin. We need to ask, “Wait a minute. How do you know these things?” You notice there really wasn't much argument in this blog. It was mainly assertion. For example, I noticed in his second paragraph he said, “While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, and civility seem to exist, we know they do not.” And I thought, “Really? How do you know that? What is your argument?” He says,

Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past . . . But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination.

And my thought is, “Really? What is your proof?” That may be true given the truth of naturalism, given the truth of atheism, but why should we think that? Why should we think that our concepts of morality have no objective referent in reality, no objective truth? He doesn't really give any argument for that. At most he says that our beliefs are the product of our societal and evolutionary conditioning. Now, if that is meant to be an argument against their objective truth, that is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy, which is trying to explain away something – explain away a thing's truth – by showing how that belief originated. Even if it's true that our moral beliefs originated through social and biological conditioning, that doesn't show that those beliefs are false.[3] That would be to commit the genetic fallacy. So there is a real shortage of argument here for why we should think that our moral judgments are not true. Granted that they would be false on naturalism – that is not a proof that therefore they are false.....
...
continued at: The Real Consequences of Atheism | Reasonable Faith (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-real-consequences-of-atheism#ixzz2yQBI3J3L)

[revelarts]

related items

naturalistic atheism has no objective standard to promote morals.

I've heard some atheist environmentalist claim that Genghis Khan was "good" because he killed so many people that many areas in China were returned to wilderness. While other greens reply that Genghis Khan was "bad" because he fathered to many children and descendants harming the planet. the standard for them is utilitarian based on there own views of environmental health. Genghis Khan and other mass murders of course didn't care about that, but their DNA drove them to do it, so who can say they were wrong"?

...............................

atheist R. Dawkins Doesn't "feel" like he has to live under the constraints of survival of the fittest and DNA. But he gives no REASON (in nature or science) why he should somehow be able to BUCK and DENY the processes "writ in to tooth and claw".

Quote:

<tbody>
“We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators” (Dawkins: the Selfish Gene p 215)

</tbody>

He never say why just that we SOME HOW can OVERCOME the all powerful forces of our genes that he's described throughout the rest of the book.
He's said “What I am saying, along with many other people, among them T. H. Huxley, is that in our political and social life we are entitled to throw out Darwinism, to say we don’t want to live in a Darwinian world”
http://www.froes.dds.nl/DAWKINS.htm


Quote:

<tbody>
Skeptic: Well, if we don't accept religion as a reasonable guide to "what is" or even a reasonable guide to "what ought to be," does evolution give us such a guide? Can we turn to evolution to answer not what is, but what ought to be?

Dawkins: I'd rather not do that. I think Julian Huxley was the last person who attempted to. In my opinion, a society run along "evolutionary" lines would not be a very nice society in which to live. But further, there's no logical reason why we should try to derive our normative standards from evolution. It's perfectly consistent to say this is the way it is--natural selection is out there and it is a very unpleasant process. Nature is red in tooth and claw. But I don't want to live in that kind of a world. I want to change the world in which I live in such a way that natural selection no longer applies.

Skeptic: But given the clay from which we are made, doesn't natural selection make it relatively unlikely that some things will work? Doesn't Darwinism undercut the great socialist hope, "Why, because we will it so!"?

Dawkins: Some goals may be unrealistic. But that doesn't mean that we should turn around the other way and say therefore we should strive to make a Darwinian millennium come true.

Skeptic: But then isn't what we ought to do (as David Hume argued long ago) just a matter of preference and choice, custom and habit?

Dawkins: I think that's very likely true. But I don't think that having conceded that point, I as an individual should then be asked to abandon my own ethical system or goals. I as an individual can adopt idealistic or socialistic or unrealistic or whatever sort of norms of charity and good will towards other people. They may be doomed if you take a strong Darwinian line on human nature, but it's not obvious to me that they are....
'Darwin's dangerous disciple' An Interview With Richard Dawkins (http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_3.php)

</tbody>


the point is he doesn't WANT to live in a darwinistic world, even though/because he knows it's dark and amoral. But he has no REASON in believing that based on our NATURE and Genes that we should be moral.

so he's being Inconsistent.

Dawkins CLAIMS that godless nature is everything when it comes to humanity, but wants to rebel against nature, transcend nature, when it comes to morals and society. With nothing but 'unrealistic'... faith(?) as a base.

[revelarts]

The atheistic ethicist, Richard Taylor... writes,

“To say that something is wrong because... it is forbidden by God,
is... perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God.
But to say that something is wrong... even though no God exists to forbid it,
is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”vi

....philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein candidly admitted that if there are ethical absolutes they would have to have come to man from outside the human situation -
"Ethics, if it is anything," he wrote, "is supernatural..."vii
....
J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii
....
The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory."


But if Ruse is right, then our strong intuitions that rape, selfishness, discrimination and hate are objectively wrong, even outrageously immoral, are just delusions. So, unfortunately for the atheist, there is no basis for objective morality in a universe without God. As the Russian author Dostoyevsky put it,

[I]"If there is no God, then all things are permitted."ix

Is There Any Real Right or Wrong? (http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/rightorwrong/page3.html)


G.K Chesterton pointed out that the modern skeptic has nothing to stand on this way

Quote:

<tbody>
The new rebel is a skeptic and will not entirely trust anything… The fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation applies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces but the doctrine by which he denounces it…

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life,
as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time.

He goes to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts;
then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines.

In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality;
in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.

Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything....

</tbody>

[Augusto]

So, that was pretty short. As predicted, you jumped on the blind rage wagon.

Tell me, what does the Bible say toward slavery?

---

If you want to take my advice, stop. You will lose in every single aspect you try to discuss. I kow you cannot choose to be free from your brainwashing. That's why it's a mental illness, but at least you can choose to ignore the subject and enjoy other threads.

I'm discussing other things, you know? Forget about religion = my advice.

[revelarts]

basically
Atheist are hypocritical.
They are not living by the what they CLAIM is reality. 'were just animals ,there is no God.'

Out of one side of their mouths they say we are only animals.
and out of the other they say we have to treat each other like precious "humans".
And they actually Borrow and Steal from a Christian world view to make their claims of obligatory Equality and Love and kindness.

Because there's NOTHING in nature and materialism alone that makes them obligatory.

for example
the moral assumptions:
of the equality of homosexual marriage to traditional marriage
of the near or equality of animals to humans
that gov't health care is a "right".
that a woman can kill her unborn children
that we can preemptively kill others in war
that the gov't can tell you who you must work for despite your convictions religious or otherwise..
that assisted suicide is OK.

It's all bombastic smoke blowing. they cannot tell you WHY any of the above is true ultimately.
Besides gut feeling, distorted concepts of "freedom" and utilitarian concepts of "harm" that conveniently allows murder at times for the perceived greater good.
Stalin & Moa claim more lives in the 20th century than nearly all the religions combined.

there's NO fixed standard. Pop atheism imagines it's a the peak of understanding and grasp of human morality and equality but it's just floated off the rails from a formerly christian culture that promoted the concepts of Morality and equality based on the teaching of God and Jesus Christ.

[Perianne]

So, that was pretty short. As predicted, you jumped on the blind rage wagon.

Tell me, what does the Bible say toward slavery?

---

If you want to take my advice, stop. You will lose in every single aspect you try to discuss. I kow you cannot choose to be free from your brainwashing. That's why it's a mental illness, but at least you can choose to ignore the subject and enjoy other threads.

I'm discussing other things, you know? Forget about religion = my advice.

Augusto, arrogance is never a pretty thing nor enjoyable for others.

[revelarts]

So, that was pretty short. As predicted, you jumped on the blind rage wagon.

Tell me, what does the Bible say toward slavery?

---

If you want to take my advice, stop. You will lose in every single aspect you try to discuss. I kow you cannot choose to be free from your brainwashing. That's why it's a mental illness, but at least you can choose to ignore the subject and enjoy other threads.

I'm discussing other things, you know? Forget about religion = my advice.

Why do you call. my post "rage"
it's just a statement of philosophical facts that you fail to mention about your own position.

you posted 4 videos and links to support you position was that RAGE?
Is it RAGE when you call all religion "mental illness"
i assumed it was just you expressing your thoughts honestly.

same here
why would try to characterize my comments negatively rather than engage the ideas presented?
that's a very LOW way to respond Agusto. and not honest.

Concerning Slavery, if you want to start a thread about that we can do that elsewhere.
this Thread is about atheism.

And you can choose to be free of your brainwashing if you'll take a minute to read what i've posted rather than assume you already know WHAT i mean and How i got here A.

[Augusto]

The man is running in a hate spread.

I'm not arrogant, I'm simply suggesting him to stop. Everything he is saying is simply wrong. Miss informative and a result of religious brainwashing.

If people here get angry a flame war will start and we all will lose.

I have two suggestions:

a) We all stop talking about religion. Nothing happens, we move along.

b) I explain, obviously not for revelarts. As I diagnosed him, he is unable to escape from religion. All he can do is feel bad and react to reason with anger.

I could say very interesting things regarding this subject. The thing is I'm not sure people can or are willing to listen.

There is no desire to cause humilliation or to look arrogant.

Not at all.

[revelarts]

You will lose in every single aspect you try to discuss.

there's only aspect on the table here Agusto, please take a few minutes and give us the reasons.
---please not your assertions about where the idea came from--- or how bad Christianity is.---

Where do atheist derive objective morals?

you've got the floor

[Augusto]

You want to talk?

Okay, but you posted too many arguments together. Would you choose one or do you want me to choose one by myself?

For instance, regarding marriage, you should check this link: http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries the only tradicional thing about marriage is "change".

I apologize if I got it wrong, but you said you were leaving, then you posted 3 times in a row a lot of stuff against atheists... since I was waiting an outburst, I asume this was the outburst I predicted.

Eitherway, check your biblical facts on women's rights, slavery and racism. Let me know what you find.

[Augusto]

Objective morals do not exist. What you call "objective" is simply brainwashing. Morality is an adaptative mechanism to increase chances of survival, therefore, it changes depending on the society and time.

A good example of that is USA a couple centuries ago. Good conservative christians went to church every sunday, only to return to their cotton plantations. Did they feel any remorse? No! Black people were descendants from Ham so they were cursed. Slavery was never condemned in the bible, so they were doing everything okay.

So... I hope you can see what I mean when I say there is no objective morality. If you need me to, I can further explain myself.

[Perianne]

So, that was pretty short. As predicted, you jumped on the blind rage wagon.

Tell me, what does the Bible say toward slavery?

---

If you want to take my advice, stop. You will lose in every single aspect you try to discuss. I kow you cannot choose to be free from your brainwashing. That's why it's a mental illness, but at least you can choose to ignore the subject and enjoy other threads.

I'm discussing other things, you know? Forget about religion = my advice.

If revelarts is indeed brainwashed and cannot choose to think outside his closed mind, how are we not to assume the same of you?

[Augusto]

Because I'm a freethinker?

Listen, you can think whatever you like right now, or you can make questions and investigate to form an educated opinion regarding anything. Is that simple. What you need to do is ignore your emotions and think critically.

At least that's what I do.

[revelarts]

You want to talk?
Okay, but you posted too many arguments together. Would you choose one or do you want me to choose one by myself?
For instance, regarding marriage, you should check this link: http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries the only tradicional thing about marriage is "change".
I apologize if I got it wrong, but you said you were leaving, then you posted 3 times in a row a lot of stuff against atheists... since I was waiting an outburst, I asume this was the outburst I predicted.
Eitherway, check your biblical facts on women's rights, slavery and racism. Let me know what you find.

sheesh C'mon Agusto.

in the other thread you said
"Your comment, when you start talking about atheism, does not make any sense. I could point out why..."
(that's like throwing read meat to dog to me on any subject btw "i could point out why" and leaving me hanging, no.)
So OK you weren't clear on WHAT part of my statement you had a problem with.
So I said I'd reply and try to clear up what i meant.

"I'll post a series of long items i've done elsewhere dealing with the morality bit though."the 2nd portion specifically is what i chose to EXPAND on in this thread.


my statement was:
"But at this point it sounds like maybe you're a follower of Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris and the like.
the way they sometimes write about religion being a base evil is much like the way the communist write against capitalism and bourgeoisie. It's hyperbolic and wrong headed in a blind overarching way.
"Harris however has made some honest strides at least recognizing the limits of Atheism in the moral realm. And making distinctions Positive verses Negative religions that Hitchens didn't want to acknowledge and Dawkins seems unwilling to consider."

this thread is not about marriage or slavery in the bible or women's rights or when i said i would leave, c'mon man that's a dodge. We know you think the bible is a horror show , ok we get it. you've got that privilege.

so lets say we assume you're absolutely right. So great, the Bible is off the table. no need to refute it here anymore it's gone. hallelujah! now,
please explain where do atheist derive objective morals?

you've got the floor

[tailfins]

Because I'm a freethinker?

Listen, you can think whatever you like right now, or you can make questions and investigate to form an educated opinion regarding anything. Is that simple. What you need to do is ignore your emotions and think critically.

At least that's what I do.

Take it one step further and be a free-doer. I dare you to moon the United Socialist Party headquarters in the middle of the day. :mooning:

[Augusto]

I just told you there is no objective morality.

You need to understand an atheist is someone who... is NOT a theist = we don't use the Bible to make our mind.

Therefore, we don't have any set of rules that defines us. We are an infinite diversity. There are atheists who don't care about religion at all, there are others who find it worth discussing, there are bad atheists and very moral atheists as well. This means neither you or I can talk about "atheistS". I can only speak for myself.

I am a faithful husband. I decided to be faitful to my wife because I love her, because I don't want to give her any excuse to leave me and because I thought about it and concluded unfaithfulness implies a strong disrespect and damages the relationship even if the partner never finds out. I am proud of being a faithful husband.

I apply in many/most cases the simple rule "I don't think it's nice to do to others what I wouldn't want others to do to me".

This is how morality actually works. You could check this data: http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf in which there is useful information regarding countries in which most of the population are atheists. With that in mind you can go and do a research regarding criminality or whatever.

The ocnclusion is simple: God does not help morality.

[revelarts]

Ah missed your post my apologies


Objective morals do not exist. What you call "objective" is simply brainwashing. Morality is an adaptative mechanism to increase chances of survival, therefore, it changes depending on the society and time.

A good example of that is USA a couple centuries ago. Good conservative christians went to church every sunday, only to return to their cotton plantations. Did they feel any remorse? No! Black people were descendants from Ham so they were cursed. Slavery was never condemned in the bible, so they were doing everything okay.

So... I hope you can see what I mean when I say there is no objective morality. If you need me to, I can further explain myself.


I just told you there is no objective morality.
You need to understand an atheist is someone who... is NOT a theist = we don't use the Bible to make our mind.
Therefore, we don't have any set of rules that defines us. We are an infinite diversity. There are atheists who don't care about religion at all, there are others who find it worth discussing, there are bad atheists and very moral atheists as well. This means neither you or I can talk about "atheistS". I can only speak for myself.
I am a faithful husband. I decided to be faitful to my wife because I love her, because I don't want to give her any excuse to leave me and because I thought about it and concluded unfaithfulness implies a strong disrespect and damages the relationship even if the partner never finds out. I am proud of being a faithful husband.
I apply in many/most cases the simple rule "I don't think it's nice to do to others what I wouldn't want others to do to me".
This is how morality actually works. You could check this data: http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf in which there is useful information regarding countries in which most of the population are atheists. With that in mind you can go and do a research regarding criminality or whatever.
The ocnclusion is simple: God does not help morality.


Objective morals are "brainwashing"? sheesh,
why is the line from the 'Princess Bride' coming to mind.
"...you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means."

I suspect that when an atheist uses the concept they're not "brainwashed"
"The atheistic ethicist, Richard Taylor... writes,
“To say that something is wrong because... it is forbidden by God,
is... perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God.
But to say that something is wrong... even though no God exists to forbid it,
is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”vi

....philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein candidly admitted that if there are ethical absolutes they would have to have come to man from outside the human situation -
"Ethics, if it is anything," he wrote, "is supernatural..."vii
....
J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii
....
The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:
"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory."
Somehow they seem able to acknowledge the concept Augusto.

[you should probably stop using the term brainwashing. So far when you've used it has not added any intellectual content to your points. At best it just comes across as showing your personal bias and as a lazy dodge. A negative slur that you seem to hope shuts down the conversation rather than using real reason, logic and facts to make your point.]

But you Concerning you personal points you admit that you morals are self selected AD hoc and that all other atheist are only bound by their own self sleeted morals as well. I suspect you'd agree that many people's morals -atheist and others- are molded "brainwashed" by their cultural's at least to some degree as well. But ultimately there's NO universal moral that any atheist can appeal to.

So if we wisely abandon all religious and cultural norms for our own individual morals, there's no reason why slavery, murder for food, all forms of sexual relations shouldn't be allowed. At the very least there's no way to rationally condemn anyone else's actions except to say "I don't like it" but to say "it's not RIGHT" is a meaningless statement.

So Augusto if you're upset with someone for NOT paying taxes or not wanting to work at a homosexual wedding or voting to bomb a nation, or spanking a child. You have NO basis to condemn them as wrong. There're no real binding cultural rules or objective standards that anyone else has to abided by. Much less YOUR personal notions of right and wrong that you've adhered to in your lifetime.

this is a fatal flaw in fully living out the implications of philosophy of Atheism.
Most atheist simply leap frog over the problem and pretend that there are SOME standards, Not just Standards but RIGHTS! EQUAL RIGHTS, WOMANS RIGHTs, HOMSEXUAL RIGHTS, Children's rights, animal rights, or the rights to bear arms or Right free speech, right to food, right to health care, right to a lawyer, etc etc. As you said Ausgusto they don't AGREE on the rights ...or wrongs... but they DO agree on what they SAY IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY, that is, there is in fact no solid universal basis for these rights in anything. They are made up and arbitrary only adhered to because of pragmatism or tradition or they like them or can force them on others at the moment. And then assert the whole pretend rights show is for "survival".

The philosophy of social darwinism piggy backed in the back of concept of No God = no objective morally. They reasoned that we evolved, we weren't created. Evolution means -in part- survival of the fittest right? Well the British of knew they were the fittest and proceeded to exterminate 1000s in Africa and in the Pacific isles. the Americans (and Canadians) picked up this concept and began to sterilize by coercion and force the "criminal element" "the infirm" and the "lower races" native americans, poor blacks and whites and the "imbeciles". the Germans of course "scientifically" knew they were the superior race. They picked up what the english and Americans were doing and invited american eugenicist over for consultation and books then they went to work. They couldn't have these "useless eaters" like the mentality ill, the handicapped, the Gypsies, the Jews etc taking up land or polluting the gene pool with cross breeding. Survival and promotion of the master races were for the great good. Old Christian ideas about caring for the weak and sick, ideas about the value of each human soul were "brainwashing". The "REALITY" of Atheism and evolution dictate the "rational" pragmatism of survival of the strongest races and the best breeders must prevail.

But somehow when people saw it in action it turn them off. Why? The old "brainwashing" maybe? killing innocent people is wrong maybe?

Augusto in the other thread you mention that you thought self sacrifice for an unseen God on principal was mental illness. Is mass killing for the goal of racial purity based on "scientific" evolution and "scientific" racial superiority" sane?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOcbkSiKUc
History of racism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F2g_OtX6t2k

In the U.S.S.R from the 1920s on Stalin wanted to promoted the reality of Atheism and communism. the message was so compelling that he had to shoot and imprison religious people sometime placing them in mental institutions,

"USSR anti-religious campaigns
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church), which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy), and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp). Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-Olga_Tchepournaya_2003_p._377-1) More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-2) Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-3)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

http://people.opposingviews.com/communist-persecution-christianity-religion-4328.html
Atheism removes any real compelling moral checks. Some morals of course remain simply because human beings are not built to live without morals and it's human root love. One of the 1st concept a child grasps with passion is "that's not FAIR!". Atheist can only say that that's just a biologic hic-up, nothing of any real meaning.

[Augusto]

I will stop using the word brainwash, unless I have something really important to say that needs the word.

There is no need for you to support your arguments with links, quotations or videos. I'm very familiar with anything religious/atheist. You can save some work by simply addressing an issue without trying to "prove" it. That way it will become easier to read.

Mmm... I just said there isn't objective moralities and that somehow was miss read. I'll try again:

a) Objective morality: NO (not religious, not secular = NONONO)
b) Morality: YES

Is not fear to go to prison what prevents me to commit murder or raping. It's an inner code, or morality.

Human beings are social beings. As such, we develop an inner moral code as an adaptative strategy to better fit in our enviroment. This is something we learn, like riding a bike, and it becomes natural to us. Even linked with our emotions.

Taking aside "the word", you can simply see religion as part of the society and religious people as individuals adapting to it and developing a moral code according to what is perceived as "right" within their religious enviroment. If you take religion away, if religion suddently dissapears or if it's not valid, there is still a society from which the individual will learn and to which he/she will adapt.

This explain why those countries with over 80% of atheist population are so civil and nice, and why many Americans, for example, can be christian and still embrace "warrior like" attitudes instead of turning the other cheek.

Since morality is adaptative, one can talk of two different moralities, one applied to ourselves (more flexible), and the other applied to other people. An obvious example is that of an individual who judges a young girl for marrying an old rich man as a form of prostitution, and yet this same individual shows no remorse and no problem when watching porn videos for his own entertainment.

In short, morality is a socially adaptative learning. If the society is religious, morality will come from it, if not, it will still come from it.

[Perianne]

I will stop using the word brainwash, unless I have something really important to say that needs the word.

There is no need for you to support your arguments with links, quotations or videos. I'm very familiar with anything religious/atheist. You can save some work by simply addressing an issue without trying to "prove" it. That way it will become easier to read.

Mmm... I just said there isn't objective moralities and that somehow was miss read. I'll try again:

a) Objective morality: NO (not religious, not secular = NONONO)
b) Morality: YES

Is not fear to go to prison what prevents me to commit murder or raping. It's an inner code, or morality.

Human beings are social beings. As such, we develop an inner moral code as an adaptative strategy to better fit in our enviroment. This is something we learn, like riding a bike, and it becomes natural to us. Even linked with our emotions.

Taking aside "the word", you can simply see religion as part of the society and religious people as individuals adapting to it and developing a moral code according to what is perceived as "right" within their religious enviroment. If you take religion away, if religion suddently dissapears or if it's not valid, there is still a society from which the individual will learn and to which he/she will adapt.

This explain why those countries with over 80% of atheist population are so civil and nice, and why many Americans, for example, can be christian and still embrace "warrior like" attitudes instead of turning the other cheek.

Since morality is adaptative, one can talk of two different moralities, one applied to ourselves (more flexible), and the other applied to other people. An obvious example is that of an individual who judges a young girl for marrying an old rich man as a form of prostitution, and yet this same individual shows no remorse and no problem when watching porn videos for his own entertainment.

In short, morality is a socially adaptative learning. If the society is religious, morality will come from it, if not, it will still come from it.

Can you provide a list of those countries with over 80% atheist?

[Augusto]

I already did, but here is it again: http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf

High levels of education, and they're not killing eachother.

By the other hand, if you seek for most dangerous cities you will find ALL OF THEM are religious countries, either christian countries or islamic countries: http://www.escapehere.com/destination/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-to-travel/10/

This shows religion is absolutely useless to promote a real moral behavior. This must be read like this: just like people don't try to walk above water, they don't follow morality more than they think it's reasonable. If mysery or whatever is too high, they won't hesitate in doing "whatever" because morality is not reporting any beneficts.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Part of a response to an Atheist admission that
if atheism and naturalism is true then morals are illusory.



http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

I refute this statement of yours with this research that shows that you are a lest 70% wrong.

Do you agree that for that 70%, their moral positions and tenets are not illusory any more than yours are.

If you do not agree then please show the difference.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Can you provide a list of those countries with over 80% atheist?

It I hard to say when countries and their populations lie.
For instance, in Finland, 95% of Fin clai to be Christian yet only about 4% ever go into a church.

I do have a bit though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Regards
DL

[Noir]

Sam Harris discusses this in depth in his book 'the moral landscape', the premise is simple yet paradigm shifting. Namely that we can scientifically quantify wellbeing through the experience of a conscious mind, from which morality can be defined.

[Voted4Reagan]

In the U.S.S.R from the 1920s on Stalin wanted to promoted the reality of Atheism and communism. the message was so compelling that he had to shoot and imprison religious people sometime placing them in mental institutions,

"USSR anti-religious campaigns
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church), which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy), and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp). Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-Olga_Tchepournaya_2003_p._377-1) More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-2) Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)#cite_note-3)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html



How many dead Russians/Ukrainians and others in the pursuit of the Soviet Atheist Utopia?

Answer - MILLIONS

[red state]

An ever changing, decreasing range of morals is to have NO morals or moral compass. This new member, whom I will not engage nor honor by quoting has already diagnosed us ALL. In return, I see this person as one with a conditioned brainwashing against his/her own religion (if this arrogant person ever had peace in their heart) and is totally ignorant of facts due to hate-filled blindness and utter detest of those who do have peace, answers and an absolute moral compass by which we are successfully and happily guided. If the arrogance continues without honest debate (such as the fantastic points that REV brought up) I will be forced to permanently BAN this new member from my screen because he/she will most certainly be a waste of scroll time and undue wear and tear on the ole mouse or scroll pad. NONE of us like to be "diagnosed" or told, without proof of fact, that we are wrong and I'll not abide by it!

[Voted4Reagan]

An ever changing, decreasing range of morals is to have NO morals or moral compass. This new member, whom I will not engage nor honor by quoting has already diagnosed us ALL. In return, I see this person as one with a conditioned brainwashing against his/her own religion (if this arrogant person ever had peace in their heart) and is totally ignorant of facts due to hate-filled blindness and utter detest of those who do have peace, answers and an absolute moral compass by which we are successfully and happily guided. If the arrogance continues without honest debate (such as the fantastic points that REV brought up) I will be forced to permanently BAN this new member from my screen because he/she will most certainly be a waste of scroll time and undue wear and tear on the ole mouse or scroll pad. NONE of us like to be "diagnosed" or told, without proof of fact, that we are wrong and I'll not abide by it!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::c lap::clap:


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4681357/applause-o.gif

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Sam Harris discusses this in depth in his book 'the moral landscape', the premise is simple yet paradigm shifting. Namely that we can scientifically quantify wellbeing through the experience of a conscious mind, from which morality can be defined.

I agree.

Have you read any of Jonathan Haigt's stuff. Quite an eye opener as far as religious thought and morality goes as well.

If I may load you up.

General.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

Why we form religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

On what I call apotheosis and have experience the one time. Esoterically, it is opening your third eye or activating the right hemisphere of the brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYsx6WArKY


Regards
DL

[AllieBaba]

Essentially, what we hear from Augusto is the same self-centered, feelings-driven ideology that Satanists embrace: "The church does not believe in or worship a literal supernatural Satan. High priest Peter Gilmore describes its members as "skeptical atheists", indicating the Hebrew root of the word "Satan" as "opposer" or "one who questions". "In an interview with David Shankbone (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Shankbone&action=edit&redlink=1), High Priest Peter Gilmore stated "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane." " "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

How many dead Russians/Ukrainians and others in the pursuit of the Soviet Atheist Utopia?

Answer - MILLIONS

Many millions.

Care to evaluate and comment on this piece?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0&feature=player_embedded

Do you think a vote between democracy and a theocracy should be promoted?

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

It is completely normal that you asociate me with Satan. It's a natural defense when reality and logic find their way to confront the religious dogma.

When I was dropping my faith I thought for about 2 or 3 days that I was a real prophet, and I'm not even joking. Breaking free from the chains of religion and delusion is like Neo's experience in Matrix.

I will not tell you that I'm not the devil. Instead, I will invite you to think in the miracle of the multiplication of fishes and breads. Imagine the people, the basket with 3 or 7 fishes and breads... a hand goes inside the basket and takes one fish and one bread to give it to one person, then does the same, over and over. There are hundreds and hundreds of people in the line... now put your eyes in the basket, as the breads and the fishes multiply.

How is this happening? Do they pop...? Do the breads and fishes simply appear like comming from another dimention, like in Terminator movies? Is there a hole in the basket that links to a tunel full of fishes and breads?

That would be too complicated. I would say that the miracle was pretty easy to create: someone just wrote it down.

But why? Why adding to the already humanly divine figure of Jesus? After all the miracles, why add one more, a ridiculous one, by the way? Maybe... just maybe... everything was fake.

Investigate. If you want to find the devil, you will find it where you less expect him... investigate and you will find Satan dragging your very soul and the soul of your family.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH...!

[AllieBaba]

It is completely normal that you asociate me with Satan. It's a natural defense when reality and logic find their way to confront the religious dogma.

When I was dropping my faith I thought for about 2 or 3 days that I was a real prophet, and I'm not even joking. Breaking free from the chains of religion and delusion is like Neo's experience in Matrix.

I will not tell you that I'm not the devil. Instead, I will invite you to think in the miracle of the multiplication of fishes and breads. Imagine the people, the basket with 3 or 7 fishes and breads... a hand goes inside the basket and takes one fish and one bread to give it to one person, then does the same, over and over. There are hundreds and hundreds of people in the line... now put your eyes in the basket, as the breads and the fishes multiply.

How is this happening? Do they pop...? Do the breads and fishes simply appear like comming from another dimention, like in Terminator movies? Is there a hole in the basket that links to a tunel full of fishes and breads?

That would be too complicated. I would say that the miracle was pretty easy to create: someone just wrote it down.

But why? Why adding to the already humanly divine figure of Jesus? After all the miracles, why add one more, a ridiculous one, by the way? Maybe... just maybe... everything was fake.

Investigate. If you want to find the devil, you will find it where you less expect him... investigate and you will find Satan dragging your very soul and the soul of your family.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH...!
I don't associate you with satan, you nitwit. I said your philosophy mirrors Satanist philosophy. The rest of your claptrap is just more muddy thinking on your part.

[Augusto]

You know, I'm here talking to you because I would have loved that someone would have told me this things to me when I was a christian. That's the real reason. My phylosophy is about helping people.

[AllieBaba]

You know, I'm here talking to you because I would have loved that someone would have told me this things to me when I was a christian. That's the real reason. My phylosophy is about helping people.

No it's not. Your philosophy is about believing you know everything. You don't.

[Gunny]

You know, I'm here talking to you because I would have loved that someone would have told me this things to me when I was a christian. That's the real reason. My phylosophy is about helping people.

Why don't you help yourself instead? YOU are the misguided fool. Disaffected by the very thing that created them. My, my. You're real hard to read. You aren't enlightening anyone to step backwards on your slide down the ladder.

Let me guess ... times got tough and you, being a typical leftwing, entitled American wanted a handout. God didn't give you one so you turned away.

Or are you the accountability type? If I deny there is a God then I am not accountable for my transgressions.

Grow some balls before you turn out like FingerMyProstateBishop.

[AllieBaba]

Why don't you help yourself instead? YOU are the misguided fool. Disaffected by the very thing that created them. My, my. You're real hard to read. You aren't enlightening anyone to step backwards on your slide down the ladder.

Let me guess ... times got tough and you, being a typical leftwing, entitled American wanted a handout. God didn't give you one so you turned away.

Or are you the accountability type? If I deny there is a God then I am not accountable for my transgressions.

Grow some balls before you turn out like FingerMyProstateBishop. I thought he was a Venzuelan..or Argentian...or Chilean...communist.

[NightTrain]

Check the cage - he explains his horrible situation pretty clearly.

Personally, I would think that he'd be praying to any Deity possible instead of spending his time attacking Christians.

[AllieBaba]

Check the cage - he explains his horrible situation pretty clearly.

Personally, I would think that he'd be praying to any Deity possible instead of spending his time attacking Christians. It's pretty obvious he's all about building himself up by ridiculing and attempting to change others who don't share his world view. Which as we know is a pretty narrow existence.

[Voted4Reagan]

Check the cage - he explains his horrible situation pretty clearly.

Personally, I would think that he'd be praying to any Deity possible instead of spending his time attacking Christians.

I'd love to see him speak his load of garbage in Chavez-Land....

Last I saw they still dont have free speech it the Utopia that Hugo built....

[bullypulpit]

naturalistic atheism has no objective standard to promote morals.

Actually, it does. The consequences to this human life...in this world.

What does religion offer as its moral yardstick? The arbitrary pronouncements by self-appointed spokepersons of some omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable entity beyond human comprehension. Not exactly an objective basis for anything. Dismissed.

[revelarts]

I want to come back and reply to several others in this thread but I'l make brief comment here.


Actually, it does. The consequences to this human life...in this world.

What does religion offer as its moral yardstick? The arbitrary pronouncements by self-appointed spokepersons of some omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable entity beyond human comprehension. Not exactly an objective basis for anything. Dismissed.

"The consequences to this human life...in this world."

As i pointed out the social darwinist DID NOT think that standard was universal. It only applied to the "FIT" and "Better RACES". Not Human Lives in general.

Also we see among secular and moderately religious people that it does not apply to Children in the womb.
In a few Euro countries euthanasia IS being practiced by Doctors. So much so that many older people are afraid to go to them.
Doctors killing for "Human Life" ...in this world.
Many Animal Rights Activist believe that animal right's are EQUAL to or MORE important than Humans in some circumstances.
Many environmentalist concerned about OVER population believe mass abortion is practically necessary "for the greater good" and ultimate survival of the Humanity. Abortion as practiced by Chinese for example. And even stealth sterilization programs as has been reported in Africa to "help" people. Other environmentalist admit than MORE draconian method may be "necessary to "save" humanity.

Different people define "The consequences to this human life...in this world." in ways they "FEEL" is right.
which ultimately often justifies murder.

But even before we get there we have to ASK WHY "The consequences to this human life...in this world." MUST be a base for anyone else?
Why do we HAVE TO abided by it? There's no LAW that says we HAVE TO.
Why not JUST the "The consequences to this MY FAMILY'S life...in this world."?
What's the compelling rational that makes your standard THE standard?


What does Christianity offer?
the truth.
Dismiss it at your own risk.

[Max R.]

Why do you call. my post "rage"
it's just a statement of philosophical facts that you fail to mention about your own position.....
Agreed. He's just being "Augusto" and blasting anyone who questions atheism. His slavery comment is an attempt to derail.

As for the OP, that's a double-edged sword. While I do agree that atheists can justify genocide if it's "logical", the idea of an ultimate moral guide to prevent this may lead some to think God is a construct to prevent moral relativism.

[indago]

Societies tend to develop rules to live by, regardless religion.

[Max R.]

Societies tend to develop rules to live by, regardless religion.

Animals do the same thing, albeit by evolution. Mothers protect their young. Herd/pack animals develop hierarchies of order. Depending on the species, disputes can be resolved peaceably or with violence. Chickens will kill those lowest on the pecking order, but dogs within a pack will often solve differences with minimal violence.

If the purpose of a species is to survive and procreate, then there are certain rules, governed by natural law, which will enhance their chances of success.

[Voted4Reagan]

Animals do the same thing, albeit by evolution. Mothers protect their young. Herd/pack animals develop hierarchies of order. Depending on the species, disputes can be resolved peaceably or with violence. Chickens will kill those lowest on the pecking order, but dogs within a pack will often solve differences with minimal violence.

If the purpose of a species is to survive and procreate, then there are certain rules, governed by natural law, which will enhance their chances of success.

Well said indeed Max!!

[Max R.]

Well said indeed Max!!
Thanks, V4R! I try hard. :D

Having once been an atheist myself at age 17 and having both studied the nature of existence and discussed this topic for decades, I've come to a few general conclusions.

Two that are applicable to both theists and atheists is that there is no definitive proof of what is outside the Universe. Another is that religions are perceptions of mankind, but that doesn't negate the existence of the Universe, the fact all current evidence points to a definite beginning of our Universe and the likely end of "The Big Chill" and the fact that where there's an inside, there's probably an outside.

[Balu]

We were able to see the real consequences of Atheism for many decades in my country, and I personally disliked them.
It happened so that after 1941 it became not so sever as in 30s, and it was a good luck for all of us.

[revelarts]

Agreed. He's just being "Augusto" and blasting anyone who questions atheism. His slavery comment is an attempt to derail.

As for the OP, that's a double-edged sword. While I do agree that atheists can justify genocide if it's "logical", the idea of an ultimate moral guide to prevent this may lead some to think God is a construct to prevent moral relativism.

Some have in fact suggested that.
That a false religion is still better than atheism.
In some cases i think that might be true.

IMO there are 2 problem with the suggestion though.

1. though it may grease the skids of human relations it would be false. And for many that's not acceptable. Better the truth (as best we can discern it) than some sryupy lie.

2. other factors indicate that GOD is in fact real. The atheists moral issue just points out how their position sets them OUTside of moral reality. We all live in and by default accept as a part of human nature. Something that SHOULD NOT have arisen out of simply animal instincts. But seems created. So with the other evidences of God, Morality comes in as a corollary and makes sense of Human Morality. it's presence and it's apparent faults.

[revelarts]

We were able to see the real consequences of Atheism for many decades in my country, and I personally disliked them.
It happened so that after 1941 it became not so sever as in 30s, and it was a good luck for all of us.

Exactly, thank you Balu.

[revelarts]

Societies tend to develop rules to live by, regardless religion.
Animals do the same thing, albeit by evolution. Mothers protect their young. Herd/pack animals develop hierarchies of order. Depending on the species, disputes can be resolved peaceably or with violence. Chickens will kill those lowest on the pecking order, but dogs within a pack will often solve differences with minimal violence.
If the purpose of a species is to survive and procreate, then there are certain rules, governed by natural law, which will enhance their chances of success.

Well the idea that morality, and human self conscience EVOLVED beyond instinct is pure speculation.
it's ASSUMED not proven.

Unless someone wants to think. SINCE we have them, that means they evolved.
there's NO PROOF that "self conscience" or "Human morality" as we know it, derived from a lower herd mind.
It's an assumption. there's no known evolutionary mechanism that can do it. the only thing we KNOW evolution has done is make make good gene less good by loosing info so adapting. Or rearranging slightly the deck of genes that are already there. Or the most radical the SAME kind of organism trading a gene with another of the same kind. But there's NO evidence of NEW information being added to organisms. an organism CREATING new better more adaptive genes. period. Every KNOWN adaptations falls into the above categories. Every other assertion of evolution is based on VAST extrapolations from those. leaps of faith that hit scientific brick walls of limitation. But are still assume to have happened ...somehow ... it had to.

And even the story of evolution that "the purpose of a species is to survive and procreate, then there are certain rules, governed by natural law, which will enhance their chances of success."
Is not purely born out in our actions, or our thoughts.
If so the Social Darwinist were right in a factual sense. (But they just assumed they were "the fittest". as anyone could since fittest means --finally-- those who survive more than others.. that's it.).

But the main thing i want to point out is that Evolution has No explanation of HOW "evolution" could gradually produce anything like Human consciences, Self awareness or the complexity of Human morality.

what evolutionary explanations do is shoe horn in the word "evolution" into WHAT IS.

Human's are religious "it's a an evolutionary adaptation"
Human's have a desire to find truth "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
human's have a great capacity for self deception "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
human are highly emotional "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
Humans are rational "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
men dominate women "it's an evolutionary addition"
women want equality "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
people fight wars to dominate others "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
people are self sacrificial and care for the others "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
women love children "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
some woman kill their children "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
humans have desire to explore "it's an evolutionary adaptation"
humans have desire to stay put ""it's an evolutionary adaptation"

If it's A it evolution, if it's NOT A it's evolution. a tautology. not science. not even good logic.

Everything is " an evolutionary adaptation" so it really explains nothing.
It has no factual content it's like a placeholder for information that's NEVER shown, never proven, just assumed. like a bad faith.

[bullypulpit]

Revel is off his meds and on a tear. It's the only reason I can think of for the bafflegab he's posting.

[jimnyc]

Revel is off his meds and on a tear. It's the only reason I can think of for the bafflegab he's posting.

At least he doesn't run, he faces the tough questions head on. He doesn't "hit and run" and then return months later so that he can avoid follow up questions. If you were 1/10th of the poster/man that Rev was, you wouldn't be a troll, and you would answer direct questions instead if hitting and running like a hyena.

[revelarts]

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en
I refute this statement of yours with this research that shows that you are a lest 70% wrong.
Do you agree that for that 70%, their moral positions and tenets are not illusory any more than yours are.
If you do not agree then please show the difference.
Regards
DL

--yep it's an essay.--

Well ok Yes,
I've seen that talk before It's very interesting and Makes some GREAT points. A whole thread should be on that.
But to answer your question about morals being illusory based on what he said.

OK, 1st of all I said that morals are Illusory based on an Atheist view of the world/Humanity. Their rational construct. i never said they don't have morals they do. But based on their belief that there's NO REAL placeholder for objective morality and Humans are just animals that picked up social habits along the way and they are NOT BINDING in any real sense. Then They have no rational basis to claim "right and wrong", "good or evil", "moral or immoral".

From my POV this TED TALK guy has taken a step close to reality. instead of basing his ideas on whether objective morality exist or not as other atheist have he starts from the position that OF COURSE people ARE GENERALLY MORAL, and we should try to find the Human moral common ground pragmatically by research, rather than the conceptually.
Then He assumes that we are PRE-Wired with MORALITY. And seems to find a bit of evidence for this. Christain have called this Human Conscience since... well forever. Christain don't say -peopled don't have morals- we say -EVERYONE DOES have morals-. Atheist are WRONG. God created us as moral beings and expects us to act on that basis. Not deny Him AND or own PRE-WIRED morality. Atheist miss both shots there.

The TED TALK guy goes on to points out that our morals are in fact DIFFERENT from animals in several respects. As Christians have said ....well forever. Glad he's caught up. And i pointed out earlier theire's NO known mechanism to create or RAISE our PRE-WIRED moral slate from the animals that DO NOT have those faculties. He.. as an atheist... ASSUMES it's "evolution" again as place holder for real data that he has not proven. Christian say simply that God created us moral beings. Higher than the Animals. Our reason for that are based on evidence and revelation which others can decide whether to accept or reject. but it's Odd that it matches the PRAGMATIC research BETTER than atheistic conceptual assumptions. It seem if we're looking for the truth and one set of ancient answers matches reality over and over and better than others we should give it honest consideration.

But ok he mentions 5 items he thinks are on the human Moral slate and talks about liberal verse conservative preferences for the various 5. and points out how they've all work together to make strong cohesive and productive (not necessarily good I'll point out) societies.
Again this is a PRAGMATIC conclusion.
He talked about Rome, Babylon etc.. as a quick example of all moral points working together in large groups.
here's the thing that he didn't mention.
Truth.
The generic "moral" mind still can lead to things like social darwinism. All 5 moral factors can be working but if the Factual base is off the outcome can/will be WRONG morally. (and pragmatically)

He seems to consider the fact that we all have, what one Christian philosopher called "moral motions".
that that fact alone,
and everyone getting on the same page in understanding that we have them.
And also acknowledging we have biases for some more than others.
that that is a basis for creating "a better world".
Well, Yes they A basis. but theses moral drives have to be placed in the context of agreement on factual reality. the environmentalist STILL may think sterilizing a few million people is a GREATER GOOD for humanity. if they believe that overpopulation is a REAL problem that cannot be overcome any other way.

Christians have all the moral factors he mentions, (and while Christians are not on the same page in many areas') I think it can be pretty well established that HUMAN LIFE is a HIGH moral priority in the Biblical teaching. And we believe that WE as human beings do not have the authority to sterilize others out of perceived fears of TOO many of us. That's just NOT on the moral map. It's EVIL. Another solution must be found IF it is a fact overpopulation is true in the 1st place.

There nothing wrong with the environmentalist moral package it's just that it's off true north. and possibly/probably working off of bad "facts".

But to repeat my main thought here.
yes Humans do in fact have morals. the atheists who deny they are real or objective or built-in or not compelling to be followed are wrong. But now the question should become. ok soooo WHERE did they come from? "Evolution" is just a word here, NOT a sufficient answer to an honest person. There's simply not enough in the known evolution process to create it. period.
That's one of at least 4 places where the Known science physically, mechanical, biological, cosmological laws make it impossible to occur. The laws of nature work AGAINST it happening.

the existence of the universe-- nothing becomes everything
the existence of life--- non-life becomes Life
to what we've been talking about in part instinct becomes self-consciousness and morals
then add mans other unique feature our psychological outlook.
I like the quote "fish got to a swim, birds got to fly, man's got to ask WHY WHY WHY?"
So where in the world i did that come from?
Our search for meaning, significance, purpose, and our appreciation for the beautiful, the good and the TRUE.

So what other options are there for where they came from? we should be open minded.

[revelarts]

Sam Harris discusses this in depth in his book 'the moral landscape', the premise is simple yet paradigm shifting. Namely that we can scientifically quantify wellbeing through the experience of a conscious mind, from which morality can be defined.

I haven't read the book but i've watched a couple of his speeches and talks on this subject and the book. And it's what i had in mind when i mention to Augusto "Harris however has made some honest strides at least recognizing the limits of Atheism in the moral realm."

It seems to me that Harris, frustrated with the moral problem, but trying to honestly hold onto the materialist view AND real morals wants to find it in research and even concedes that some research should be done even in religious traditions.
The main problem is ---from what i saw-- is that he doesn't get much of anywhere. He says we should be able to find it as you say by" scientifically quantify wellbeing" etc But doesn't actually do it. He kind of sketches an outline of lines of research and questions to ask. But doesn't do it. and many philosophical and scientific reviewers seem to think it's a poor effort. the problem of the source and rational compelling base for morals still defies a materialistic explanation.

And I have to say even if he somehow succeeded it would still leaves us with debates over right and wrong. If the scientist say XYZ is what human wellbeing is . do you really think everyone is going to buy into that?

And also it brings up the spector of an overtly "scientific church mankind". Some scientist are overbearing enough as it is. But if what the Scientist says is GOOD AND RIGHT for people? well then the Church has spoken right. Those scientifically immoral people must be... handled ... how.... well the "scientific church mankind" will decide what's best of course. No chance of scientific bias creeping there. . sheeesh. But even if sincere why wouldn't they believe they should rule the world. They know best, the rabble can't decide for themselves what's right or wrong or best for them right?
and all other religions would by default have to outlawed right ... for the well being of mankind.

That may be extreme but we can't say others haven't been as arrogant and done as much.

[Balu]

There is NO atheists in an aircraft falling down.

[Max R.]

Some have in fact suggested that.
That a false religion is still better than atheism.
In some cases i think that might be true.

IMO there are 2 problem with the suggestion though.

1. though it may grease the skids of human relations it would be false. And for many that's not acceptable. Better the truth (as best we can discern it) than some sryupy lie.

2. other factors indicate that GOD is in fact real. The atheists moral issue just points out how their position sets them OUTside of moral reality. We all live in and by default accept as a part of human nature. Something that SHOULD NOT have arisen out of simply animal instincts. But seems created. So with the other evidences of God, Morality comes in as a corollary and makes sense of Human Morality. it's presence and it's apparent faults.


Agreed there are problems. This is what led be to be an atheist when I was a teenager, the "syrupy lie". I couldn't justify, literally, Genesis as being taught in church. Too many unanswered questions, too many inconsistencies, too many things which were not backed by scientific knowledge.

While some Christians take Genesis literally and believe the world is only 6000 years old, I believe God created all of the laws of the Universe and that the gift of our brain was given with the expectation that we'd use it. I always ask the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) if God is powerful enough to cast out a figurative handful of sand and know that in 9 billion years the Earth would form. After all, what is 14 billion years to the all eternal Creator? It's they who seem to want to limit God, not me.

[Max R.]

--yep it's an essay.--

Well ok Yes,
I've seen that talk before It's very interesting and Makes some GREAT points. A whole thread should be on that......Yes, it's a very interesting theoretical model of morality. Models are great for understanding complex issues, but let's not forget it's a model, not the real thing.

The "TED Talk guy" is Jonathan Haidt. He and fellow psychologist Craig Joseph have published a few social psychology papers on this topic. It's great way to better understanding of human social relations and viewpoints, it's not the ultimate answer. My personal viewpoint of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives is the differences between a nurturing, sacrificial Mother and the more demanding, stoic Father.

Examples: http://www.today.com/parents/gender-wars-men-women-parenting-2D80556388
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636429




More on Jonathan Haidt and Social morality:
https://socialcapital.wordpress.com/category/openness/
https://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/
Jonathan Haidt has an interesting talk on TED on where differences from liberals and conservatives originate from.
He notes that “being open to new experiences” is a key predictor of these divisions. Liberals crave novelty, new ideas, travel.Conservatives like dependability, routine, order and are low on openness to new experiences. (This was captured by Robert McCrae in “The Social consequences of Experiential Openness”, 1996).


http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Haidt2.pdf

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.joseph.2004.intuitive-ethics.pub035.pdf


http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/publications.html

[Max R.]

Well the idea that morality, and human self conscience EVOLVED beyond instinct is pure speculation.
it's ASSUMED not proven.........


......If it's A it evolution, if it's NOT A it's evolution. a tautology. not science. not even good logic.

Everything is " an evolutionary adaptation" so it really explains nothing.
It has no factual content it's like a placeholder for information that's NEVER shown, never proven, just assumed. like a bad faith.Are you a Creationist, Revelarts?

Do you doubt mankind evolved over millions of years?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Actually, it does. The consequences to this human life...in this world.

What does religion offer as its moral yardstick? The arbitrary pronouncements by self-appointed spokepersons of some omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable entity beyond human comprehension. Not exactly an objective basis for anything. Dismissed.

You might enjoy this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

Note that the first moral tenet has us focusing on others and their interest while the ten commandments has a self-centered God having his first 3 or 4 on himself.

Morals are supposed to be about the welfare of the group but all God cares about first and foremost is himself.

No wonder his first judgement was to have his son murdered.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I want to come back and reply to several others in this thread but I'l make brief comment here.



"The consequences to this human life...in this world."

As i pointed out the social darwinist DID NOT think that standard was universal. It only applied to the "FIT" and "Better RACES". Not Human Lives in general.



What does Christianity offer?
the truth.

Check my link just above as it refutes your first and your last is just a lie.

Truth is not talking serpents and donkeys.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Societies tend to develop rules to live by, regardless religion.

And in spite of it. Note how hard Christianity is fighting equality of all people with their homophobic and misogynous policies.

Not to mention that Islam promotes Sharia but few Christians are fool enough to promote biblical law.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Animals do the same thing, albeit by evolution. Mothers protect their young. Herd/pack animals develop hierarchies of order. Depending on the species, disputes can be resolved peaceably or with violence. Chickens will kill those lowest on the pecking order, but dogs within a pack will often solve differences with minimal violence.

If the purpose of a species is to survive and procreate, then there are certain rules, governed by natural law, which will enhance their chances of success.

So morals are basically developed for living in groups. Right?

If not living in groups one would not develop morals and would be amoral. Right?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Well said indeed Max!!

It was yes.

Care to comment on the questions in the post just above?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

We were able to see the real consequences of Atheism for many decades in my country, and I personally disliked them.
It happened so that after 1941 it became not so sever as in 30s, and it was a good luck for all of us.

Just a quick question here but just want to see what you think.

I have said in the past that theology/religion, philosophy/government, both seek the best laws and rules to live life by. One has an elected head while the other has a decreed head/God.

Is Government a religion? Or are the differences so small as to be meaningless?

If we look at Islam, we see that Muslims have basically only one theology/philosophy or religion/government where secularism does not rule Muslim countries and Sharia law rules.

Christianity tries to separate church and state and my view is that a politician cannot ignore is spiritual side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0&feature=player_embedded

I agree with this link to a certain extent and wondered if you would.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Well the idea that morality, and human self conscience EVOLVED beyond instinct is pure speculation.
it's ASSUMED not proven.

Unless someone wants to think. SINCE we have them, that means they evolved.
there's NO PROOF that "self conscience" or "Human morality" as we know it, derived from a lower herd mind..

??

What is this showing you if not just that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

--yep it's an essay.--


OK, 1st of all I said that morals are Illusory based on an Atheist view of the world/Humanity. Their rational construct. i never said they don't have morals they do. But based on their belief that there's NO REAL placeholder for objective morality and Humans are just animals that picked up social habits along the way and they are NOT BINDING in any real sense. Then They have no rational basis to claim "right and wrong", "good or evil", "moral or immoral".



Your reply was also an essay.


There is no such thing as a objective moral tenet.

And as thinking creatures, everything we do is first thought of and thus rational.

Rational does not mean that it is always the right decision but just that it was thought out first which is rational thinking. Inanity would be a exception course.

I would have spoken more to your post but it opened to many issues and unfortunately I do not have time to write an essay.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There is NO atheists in an aircraft falling down.

Of what use is such a lie to you here?

Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

It was yes.

Care to comment on the questions in the post just above?

Regards
DL

to you? No.... I dont consider you a valid poster here. You're just a Copy/Paste aganda driven flame-Baiter.

All you are is a Pseudo Intellectual, agitator and provocateur.

You should be banned.... but jimmy is too nice.

I'll discuss these issues with Max... and put you back on Ignore...You get no reply from me unless it is to rebuke you.

I urge everyone else here to do the same...

Put Gnoogie on Ignore... Dont reply to him and let him wither on the vine. He cant feed off of that.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

to you? No.... I dont consider you a valid poster here. You're just a Copy/Paste aganda driven flame-Baiter.

All you are is a Pseudo Intellectual, agitator and provocateur.

You should be banned.... but jimmy is too nice.

I'll discuss these issues with Max... and put you back on Ignore...You get no reply from me unless it is to rebuke you.

I urge everyone else here to do the same...

Put Gnoogie on Ignore... Dont reply to him and let him wither on the vine. He cant feed off of that.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html)

Without your tribe, you are less than human and a poor example of a man.

Regards
DL

[NightTrain]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html)

Without your tribe, you are less than human and a poor example of a man.

Regards
DL

No, V4R is correct.

Your small minded feeble attempts at making people question their faith are nothing but an annoyance.

You might have better luck trying to fix your own problems in Canada. You can be the lunatic on the corner of Main Street there in Ottawa railing against the religious machine that runs your country.

The fact that you're a Canadian trying to tell Americans how to do anything is laughable. When you grow up into a SuperPower, if we allow that, then you might have something to say about how Americans behave and how we adhere to our religious principles.

Until then, enjoy your irrelevant socialist sideshow that produces useless trolls like you.

[revelarts]

While some Christians take Genesis literally and believe the world is only 6000 years old, I believe God created all of the laws of the Universe and that the gift of our brain was given with the expectation that we'd use it. I always ask the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) if God is powerful enough to cast out a figurative handful of sand and know that in 9 billion years the Earth would form. After all, what is 14 billion years to the all eternal Creator? It's they who seem to want to limit God, not me.

" It's they who seem to want to limit God, not me."

I was agnostic as a teen and a bit beyond college.
And on that question i still don't consider the idea of thousands vs millions as a "limit" on God either way. God could whatever he wants. The question isn't what limits he has -there are none- but what did he really do?



Are you a Creationist, Revelarts?
Do you doubt mankind evolved over millions of years?
Doubts? I'm convinced that it's pretty close to impossible.
If some how i were to lose my faith I still wouldn't believe in evolution. The "science" of evolution is pitiful compared to other fields.

here are a few old threads where we've discussed it before.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests)http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45876-Genesis-Creation-vs-Darwin-s-Macroevolution-Myth
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45876-Genesis-Creation-vs-Darwin-s-Macroevolution-Myth)Dino tissue Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years: Censored ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjE-Z2fyIrHAhVHqoAKHS8BCZc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Farchive%2F index.php%2Ft-37627.html&ei=JyO-VYTKFsfUggSvgqS4CQ&usg=AFQjCNG2HYT9QHz9Y9AWU40WELmTeKaADw&bvm=bv.99261572,d.eXY)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41835-Science-is-Dogma

[revelarts]

??
What is this showing you if not just that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/
Regards
DL

That's another very interesting report.

But what it shows is Babies with Built-in sense of Morals.
It's a HUGE LEAP, an Assumption, to think that it came FROM lower animals. Gnostic what biological data do they show for the LINKS? Do they say something like "...see here's a MORAL gene from monkey that matches the moral gene in man but we see it was changed slightly 40,000 years ago by factor X-56 and Y.12 combining with Z*2, which created this EXTRA moral capacity NOT found in monkeys...." ?
No. not even close. what they say are placeholder throw away comments for imagined evolutionary data...
"It seems natural selection choose to do this because..." .. plug in made up story here.
that's not proof.
If they had found the opposite they STILL would have said
"It seems natural selection choose to do this because..." .. plug in made up story here.
That doesn't show anything but the ability to make up a story about an imagined evolutionary past no matter what the current data shows.

As i pointed out before Christians have believed that humans are born with morals for centuries. We have a different story WHY. We don't pretend we got the info from science. But do assert that it's true in FACT and that if scientific research can be done in an area, that it will support the Christian understanding.
as it seems to in this case.

Humans are born with a sense of right and wrong and a sense of selfishness and sin nature. surprise surprise.

[revelarts]

??
What is this showing you if not just that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/
Regards
DL

Another thing about this 'BABIES SHOW INNATE MORALITY' story that strikes me is it's implications.
Here's ANOTHER place where we can make the case against abortion stronger.

At what point in the process of growth does a child's moral sense arrive? Suddenly AT Birth? makes no sense does it?
Is it wrong to kill another growing moral Human being like ourselves?

Also Part of the argument for 'abortions being OK' lies in portraying the child as less than human, "a fetus", "a glob of tissue", "like skin cells" to justify the destruction. Appealing to that side of our built in morals -sin nature?- that think it's OK to "punish" others who are arbitrarily different, as the 60 minutes report put it.

It's worth noting that everyone in 60 minutes report was distressed by that aspect of our natures, but abortion advocates use that aspect as a main point they want people's mind to focus and act on.

hmm...

[Voted4Reagan]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html)

Without your tribe, you are less than human and a poor example of a man.

Regards
DL

I discuss Ideas all the time.... With people that actually listen and promote quality thought.

Rev is a good Example

DragonStryk is a Good Example

Gabby can be a good Example

DMP is an excellent example

Gnostic Christian Bishop???? Not a good example.

[Max R.]

So morals are basically developed for living in groups. Right?Probably true. OTOH, who developed the groups?


If not living in groups one would not develop morals and would be amoral. Right?
Bad assumption. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

How can a person be amoral, or immoral for that matter, if they are alone? I think some circumstances would apply even to hermits such as killing without harvesting or in self-defense. Just for the sake of killing. Is it moral to smash Ladybugs just for the fun of it? Amoral? Immoral?

[revelarts]

??
What is this showing you if not just that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/
Regards
DL

ANOTHER thing that hits me about about this 'BABIES SHOW INNATE MORALITY' story is the MORAL distress shown over the fact that there's an innate selfishness and tendency to be ready to "harm" others who are different.

The report talks about a change in those 'bad' actions of children as they grow older. So that at a certain point the children are being more self sacrificial... outwardly... at least.

They attribute it to "training" in morals and our cultural behavior. I guess my question is this. As an Atheist, WHY would a culture go against the natural tendency? "Evolution" obviously put the drive there for a reason. Why TEACH IT out of children over time? Isn't that AGAINST our "evolutionary" programing? Artificial cultural or religious morals that conflict with our true natures? Some have argued as much in other areas. Saying that men's sexual drive to mate with as many woman as possible is repressed by various artificial morals. For the evolutionary based person it seems you'd end up in a morass of questions that you can't clearly answer. Because you'd end up choosing à la carte what you like or what seems at the moment MORE pragmatic overall for mankind. Either way you'll end up promoting the evolutionary nature in some ways or "repressing" it in others. But it seems to me the moral choices would ultimately still be fairly arbitrary.

[Max R.]

" It's they who seem to want to limit God, not me."

I was agnostic as a teen and a bit beyond college.
And on that question i still don't consider the idea of thousands vs millions as a "limit" on God either way. God could whatever he wants. The question isn't what limits he has -there are none- but what did he really do?



Doubts? I'm convinced that it's pretty close to impossible.
If some how i were to lose my faith I still wouldn't believe in evolution. The "science" of evolution is pitiful compared to other fields.

here are a few old threads where we've discussed it before.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests)http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45876-Genesis-Creation-vs-Darwin-s-Macroevolution-Myth
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45876-Genesis-Creation-vs-Darwin-s-Macroevolution-Myth)Dino tissue Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years: Censored ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjE-Z2fyIrHAhVHqoAKHS8BCZc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Farchive%2F index.php%2Ft-37627.html&ei=JyO-VYTKFsfUggSvgqS4CQ&usg=AFQjCNG2HYT9QHz9Y9AWU40WELmTeKaADw&bvm=bv.99261572,d.eXY)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41835-Science-is-DogmaYes, God is all powerful, all knowledgeable and all merciful.

It doesn't make sense to me why God would devise the Universe, set up certain rules of "play" for the Universe, the proceed to violate those rules in an effort to trick us. God created the Natural Universe and everything within it. We have a gift of brains and, my belief, there is an expectation that we'd use those brains to divine the rules of the Universe. IMHO, science, the study of the Universe and it's laws, is divine work since it brings us closer to understanding God's creation.

[Noir]

God is...all merciful.

Remind me what its mercy will grant me, the atheist?

[Max R.]

Remind me what its mercy will grant me, the atheist?
What is it you don't have? Peace of mind? Trust? Are you worried about your eternal soul?

FWIW, I don't believe God sends people to Hell. Like the legendary Lucifer, people simply choose to remove themselves from God's grace and live in darkness. It's your choice. My belief is that God will be there waiting for your return.

[revelarts]

Yes, God is all powerful, all knowledgeable and all merciful.

It doesn't make sense to me why God would devise the Universe, set up certain rules of "play" for the Universe, the proceed to violate those rules in an effort to trick us. God created the Natural Universe and everything within it. We have a gift of brains and, my belief, there is an expectation that we'd use those brains to divine the rules of the Universe. IMHO, science, the study of the Universe and it's laws, is divine work since it brings us closer to understanding God's creation.


Ok sure but, "doesn't make sense" is different than "limiting".

Well, Yes God created a natural Universe.
If we already grant that he did it why should we assume that he ONLY used the natural processes we see in play? Especially if the processes DO NOT seem to fully explain it, and in fact contradict it.
For example Life from Non-life.
There are NO natural processes for it. NONE. Chemicals bombarded by various forces over millions of years using NATURAL forces NEVER create self replicating internally communicating information filled languages and processes that we see as life.
it's Impossible.

Some say, well God did that part supernaturally maybe. Set evolution on track AFTER that.
well is that true? Do we SEE the processes doing that today. the full on flat answer is NO.
what we SEE is very LIMITED changes in narrow areas. period. people have tried to breed a blue rose for centuries without success. Natural selection and mutation have REAL hard limits. Animal breeder have seen the limits of breeding for centuries. But Evolution assumes processes that we DO NOT SEE in effect today. It's at best an extrapolation that assumes millions of leaps OVER the known biological factors that mitigate AGAINST large or small changes in biological function and information.
There much more to be said but those are 2 scientific considerations that should not be leap frogged if we're honest and just want to base our ideas on KNOWN natural procesess to divine how God did things.

so are we to divine from the facts we have on hand. Or do we assume the unlikely extrapolation? Or maybe do we stand in an agnostic place and assume we don't kown and possible can't know because it's to far in the past to get enough real data to make a clear conclusion?

But here's the other thing.
As christians we don't just have our human wisdom and human ability to divine from the natural world about creation. Most Christians take it that God has reveled certain things via Jesus Christ, the apostles and prophets. That God told people things that we could not just figure out on our own. But some don't buy that. That's their choice. However for those of us who do believe that God did actually communicate via Jesus Christ, the apostles and prophets and preserved that information for us. We have information DIRECTLY from the SOURCE. The only one who was there at creation was God.
Does it make sense that he would tell us lies in his word?

[Gunny]

Agreed. He's just being "Augusto" and blasting anyone who questions atheism. His slavery comment is an attempt to derail.

As for the OP, that's a double-edged sword. While I do agree that atheists can justify genocide if it's "logical", the idea of an ultimate moral guide to prevent this may lead some to think God is a construct to prevent moral relativism.

That assumes that Judeo-Christian morality is inherent in Man. Morality itself is the construct of societies, regardless the heading you want to put it under.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That's another very interesting report.

But what it shows is Babies with Built-in sense of Morals.
It's a HUGE LEAP, an Assumption, to think that it came FROM lower animals. Gnostic what biological data do they show for the LINKS? Do they say something like "...see here's a MORAL gene from monkey that matches the moral gene in man but we see it was changed slightly 40,000 years ago by factor X-56 and Y.12 combining with Z*2, which created this EXTRA moral capacity NOT found in monkeys...." ?
No. not even close. what they say are placeholder throw away comments for imagined evolutionary data...
"It seems natural selection choose to do this because..." .. plug in made up story here.
that's not proof.
If they had found the opposite they STILL would have said
"It seems natural selection choose to do this because..." .. plug in made up story here.
That doesn't show anything but the ability to make up a story about an imagined evolutionary past no matter what the current data shows.

As i pointed out before Christians have believed that humans are born with morals for centuries. We have a different story WHY. We don't pretend we got the info from science. But do assert that it's true in FACT and that if scientific research can be done in an area, that it will support the Christian understanding.
as it seems to in this case.

Humans are born with a sense of right and wrong and a sense of selfishness and sin nature. surprise surprise.



The option or choice is between nature and God as to who or what put those instincts and biases into us.

To you, an un-evidenced supernatural God is more likely. To me, an-evidenced nature is.

I offer this bit to refute you. It shows that if you are correct an God is involved in the creation process then he would have to be one vile God to create such abominations and would not be moral.

I also offer it as my evidence for nature as nature is allowed to create such abominations because she is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Probably true. OTOH, who developed the groups?


Bad assumption. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

How can a person be amoral, or immoral for that matter, if they are alone? I think some circumstances would apply even to hermits such as killing without harvesting or in self-defense. Just for the sake of killing. Is it moral to smash Ladybugs just for the fun of it? Amoral? Immoral?

If I am probably speaking the truth, then what you posted is probably wrong.

God would have to thus be amoral and not worthy of being followed as he would not have learned how to lead.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

ANOTHER thing that hits me about about this 'BABIES SHOW INNATE MORALITY' story is the MORAL distress shown over the fact that there's an innate selfishness and tendency to be ready to "harm" others who are different.

The report talks about a change in those 'bad' actions of children as they grow older. So that at a certain point the children are being more self sacrificial... outwardly... at least.

They attribute it to "training" in morals and our cultural behavior. I guess my question is this. As an Atheist, WHY would a culture go against the natural tendency? "Evolution" obviously put the drive there for a reason. Why TEACH IT out of children over time? Isn't that AGAINST our "evolutionary" programing? Artificial cultural or religious morals that conflict with our true natures? Some have argued as much in other areas. Saying that men's sexual drive to mate with as many woman as possible is repressed by various artificial morals. For the evolutionary based person it seems you'd end up in a morass of questions that you can't clearly answer. Because you'd end up choosing à la carte what you like or what seems at the moment MORE pragmatic overall for mankind. Either way you'll end up promoting the evolutionary nature in some ways or "repressing" it in others. But it seems to me the moral choices would ultimately still be fairly arbitrary.

I think that our selfish gene is what makes us default to cooperation instead of competition. After all, babies are so helpless that they could not really come out of the womb ready to compete. Survival wise, cooperation is the best course of action and our selfish gene instinctively knows this.

At the same time, we know that mankind is a good and altruistic species and given the right conditions, we will cooperate instead of compete.



I think we should promote being as selfish as we can so that we cooperate instead of compete.


Regards
DL

[Gunny]

The option or choice is between nature and God as to who or what put those instincts and biases into us.

To you, an un-evidenced supernatural God is more likely. To me, an-evidenced nature is.

I offer this bit to refute you. It shows that if you are correct an God is involved in the creation process then he would have to be one vile God to create such abominations and would not be moral.

I also offer it as my evidence for nature as nature is allowed to create such abominations because she is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

What instincts? Survival is the only "instinct" Man is born with.

You can't judge God with your Judeo-Christian based morality and tiny human mind.

[revelarts]

The option or choice is between nature and God as to who or what put those instincts and biases into us.
To you, an un-evidenced supernatural God is more likely. To me, an-evidenced nature is.
I offer this bit to refute you. It shows that if you are correct an God is involved in the creation process then he would have to be one vile God to create such abominations and would not be moral.
I also offer it as my evidence for nature as nature is allowed to create such abominations because she is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

I've posted in several replies here WHY nature has no evidence of "creating" anything from lower life forms or from chemicals to life. They are scientifically impossible. "nature" has no creative power, It repeats codes already embedded, and follows innate laws. Nature does however have destructive power. Things like the second law of thermo dynamics talk about how things break down over time. Deterioration.

In the film (which you've posted before) it shows deterioration caused by the break down of genes. Genes NOT doing what they were design to do originally. Yes, God has allowed it. And God has his own morally sufficient reasons to allow it. You may not like it but he's God not you. He doesn't play on the same scale as you or i who only see a short term and limited picture. If you don't like it you're free to deny him and PRETEND that "nature" has powers it does not have. And imagine that you have the better morals than God who gave you a moral nature. Rather than try to understand it.

[revelarts]

I think that our selfish gene is what makes us default to cooperation instead of competition. After all, babies are so helpless that they could not really come out of the womb ready to compete. Survival wise, cooperation is the best course of action and our selfish gene instinctively knows this.
At the same time, we know that mankind is a good and altruistic species and given the right conditions, we will cooperate instead of compete.
I think we should promote being as selfish as we can so that we cooperate instead of compete. Regards
DL


That's an interesting but sad opinion.
and others can come to other conclusions on the morality of the selfish "gene."
and they would be just a VALID as your opinion. if "nature" is what "created" the gene.
"because she is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with."

we should promote, self sacrifice, selfishness, anger, hate love insanity, giving stealing, and lying and truth etc or maybe nothing.

There is no final standard outside of God's.
"because nature is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with."
Our minds, created by an immoral process are only random signals that have no final significance. unthinking urges in sea of random actions.

people who do have conscious and act morally are adrift in a sea of ambiguity without God.
Without God NONE can claim that morally is anything but "nature" randomly acting one way or another in the minds it created with no reason or purpose.

so your moral protest are empty Gnostic, just nature yapping.

[Max R.]

What instincts? Survival is the only "instinct" Man is born with.

You can't judge God with your Judeo-Christian based morality and tiny human mind.
He's not judging God since he doesn't believe God exists.

[Max R.]

If I am probably speaking the truth, then what you posted is probably wrong.

God would have to thus be amoral and not worthy of being followed as he would not have learned how to lead.

Regards
DL
Non sequitur but given your atheist bent, it makes since you'd leap to any conclusion, no matter how slim the evidence, to prove God doesn't exist.

[bullypulpit]

At least he doesn't run, he faces the tough questions head on. He doesn't "hit and run" and then return months later so that he can avoid follow up questions. If you were 1/10th of the poster/man that Rev was, you wouldn't be a troll, and you would answer direct questions instead if hitting and running like a hyena.

Give me a direct question and I'll answer it. Spew pointless bafflegab, and I'll call it for what it is and waste no further time with it. Rev's long-winded expositions fall into this category.

[Gunny]

He's not judging God since he doesn't believe God exists.

Every one of his posts judges God as he spends an inordinate amount of time attempting to disprove Him. His biggest fear, as evident by his posts, is that God does exist.

I don't believe in UFOs. Note the amount of time I don't bother spending trying to disprove them.

[Max R.]

That assumes that Judeo-Christian morality is inherent in Man. Morality itself is the construct of societies, regardless the heading you want to put it under.
Much of it is, but I think there are some "natural" ones in there.

For one thing, look at the common factors of all religions -- that's where I think we find the "natural morality".

[Gunny]

Much of it is, but I think there are some "natural" ones in there.

For one thing, look at the common factors of all religions -- that's where I think we find the "natural morality".

I don't see it. There's no commonality in societies. What you call "natural" is actually societal. Look at SE Asia, the ME or S America. One of our biggest issues is our arrogance. We come bearing democracy. Great. Does a LOT of good bringing it to people who have no clue what it means. But we think we are right and we're offering something God-given when it is not. The arrogant just call you racist when you say that, but it isn't racism. It's called seeing what is actually there.

Those camel jockeys don't give a hoot about democracy. They want to be camel jockeys. Gooks don't care who is blowing up their rice paddies. They want their rice paddies left alone.

What you choose to call "human nature" is nothing more than the spoils of a decadent, spoiled society.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What is it you don't have? Peace of mind? Trust? Are you worried about your eternal soul?

FWIW, I don't believe God sends people to Hell. Like the legendary Lucifer, people simply choose to remove themselves from God's grace and live in darkness. It's your choice. My belief is that God will be there waiting for your return.

Your God is a Universalist God?

If all are eventually saved and I agree with you and scriptures on this, ----

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
---- then why are so many Christians believing I hell and ignoring scriptures?

Also, why need a savior when we are all save under the quotes above?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What instincts? Survival is the only "instinct" Man is born with.

You can't judge God with your Judeo-Christian based morality and tiny human mind.

Then why are we told by scriptures to do just that.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Let me remind you of ---- they have become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

This, as you should know, is man developing the same moral sense as God. You may not be up to judging intelligent moral tenets but some of us are.

Regards
DL

[Balu]

Who in his twenty years is not optimistic, but not a misanthrope at his fiftys - one, perhaps, he be a pure soul, but as an idiot will fall into the grave.:laugh:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I've posted in several replies here WHY nature has no evidence of "creating" anything from lower life forms or from chemicals to life. They are scientifically impossible. "nature" has no creative power, It repeats codes already embedded, and follows innate laws. Nature does however have destructive power. Things like the second law of thermo dynamics talk about how things break down over time. Deterioration.

In the film (which you've posted before) it shows deterioration caused by the break down of genes. Genes NOT doing what they were design to do originally. Yes, God has allowed it. And God has his own morally sufficient reasons to allow it. You may not like it but he's God not you. He doesn't play on the same scale as you or i who only see a short term and limited picture. If you don't like it you're free to deny him and PRETEND that "nature" has powers it does not have. And imagine that you have the better morals than God who gave you a moral nature. Rather than try to understand it.

"Genes NOT doing what they were design to do originally."

Then God's design is faulty if even base mater will not do as designed.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That's an interesting but sad opinion.
and others can come to other conclusions on the morality of the selfish "gene."
and they would be just a VALID as your opinion. if "nature" is what "created" the gene.
"because she is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with."

we should promote, self sacrifice, selfishness, anger, hate love insanity, giving stealing, and lying and truth etc or maybe nothing.

There is no final standard outside of God's.
"because nature is without morals and does not have a consciousness or mind to think with."
Our minds, created by an immoral process are only random signals that have no final significance. unthinking urges in sea of random actions.

people who do have conscious and act morally are adrift in a sea of ambiguity without God.
Without God NONE can claim that morally is anything but "nature" randomly acting one way or another in the minds it created with no reason or purpose.

so your moral protest are empty Gnostic, just nature yapping.


" we should promote, self sacrifice, selfishness, anger, hate love insanity, giving stealing, and lying and truth etc or maybe nothing."

I disagree.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Non sequitur but given your atheist bent, it makes since you'd leap to any conclusion, no matter how slim the evidence, to prove God doesn't exist.

There is more evidence that God does not exist than there is for God's existence.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Give me a direct question and I'll answer it. Spew pointless bafflegab, and I'll call it for what it is and waste no further time with it. Rev's long-winded expositions fall into this category.

I agree and when ignored, he blames others/me.

I think he would be great to debate with if he would debate without preaching and writing a thesis that ignores the issues.

He has yet to learn the great pleasure of losing an argument and actually learning something new. He would rather deny himself that pleasure to stroke his ego.

Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

Why do you people engage Gnoggie?

Why do you give him a pulpit??

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why do you people engage Gnoggie?

Why do you give him a pulpit??

Why do you fear what they might learn and only enter the conversations to throw stones and run away like a really dumb poster?

Regards
DL

[Balu]

What is it you don't have? Peace of mind? ...
True! He doesn't. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

[Voted4Reagan]

What I see when Gnoggie says something...

I advise everyone to do the same...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7556&stc=1

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Haters love to hate.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

" we should promote, self sacrifice, selfishness, anger, hate love insanity, giving stealing, and lying and truth etc or maybe nothing."

I disagree.

Regards
DL

nature agrees

[Gunny]

Why do you people engage Gnoggie?

Why do you give him a pulpit??

Boredom?

[Max R.]

There is more evidence that God does not exist than there is for God's existence.

Regards
DL
DL, you are free to close your mind to whatever you choose, but the fact remains, no one can prove or disprove anything beyond the natural universe. This includes the existence of powers such as "God".

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

DL, you are free to close your mind to whatever you choose, but the fact remains, no one can prove or disprove anything beyond the natural universe. This includes the existence of powers such as "God".

If we cannot disprove beyond the natural universe, and I agree with this, then you make my case that there is more evidence against the notion of a God than here is for it.

I can add to what we know of nature the fact that God is absent from it.

Sure, it is a small point, but it is a point that cannot be refuted.

Regards
DL

[Max R.]

If we cannot disprove beyond the natural universe, and I agree with this, then you make my case that there is more evidence against the notion of a God than here is for it.

I can add to what we know of nature the fact that God is absent from it.

Sure, it is a small point, but it is a point that cannot be refuted.

Regards
DLNo, but, again, you are free to be biased and choose to believe whatever you like.

[gabosaurus]

There are no consequences for atheism. Just like there are no consequences for choosing one religion over another. It's all about how you live your life.
You could practice Santeria or Satanism and I doubt anyone would care as long as your don't go killing random people you kidnap off the street.
At the same time, you could be a God-fearing Catholic who reads the Bible and never misses a mass, but if you cheat people and beat your wife and kids, you are no better than the Devil worshipers.

You can fool the guy on the street every day of your life. But you can't fool God. You think Fred Phelps, David Koresh or Jim Jones are enjoying the light of the Heavenly Spirit right now? Think again.

You can debate the existence of God all you want. I grew up in that world, so I know what it's like. I've seen both sides.
I am guessing there are untold numbers of men who didn't believe in God until they were trapped in a confined space under enemy fire. Or been in a car wreck or a house fire. Or perhaps sat helplessly while a loved one sat near death in front of them.

It's not an argument to me. It's a difference of opinion. And I'm not changing mine.

[revelarts]

There is more evidence that God does not exist than there is for God's existence.

Regards
DL

Wrong.
just the opposite.

There are couple of youtube items for you to watch.
I hope you'll take the time as i have done for your MANY video references.
and I've replied back to your vids with my own personal reactions and rebuts not ANOTHER video or cut and paste quote or changing the subject.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw0tS8fM-iY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbE8ZLzcRk

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No, but, again, you are free to be biased and choose to believe whatever you like.

:lame2:

So are you. You follow your bias on fewer point that I use to follow mine. hat is all tat I showed.

I showed a logic/reason for my bias and you cannot show the logic/reason for yours.

That is al either of us can show as God is not popping up.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There are no consequences for atheism. Just like there are no consequences for choosing one religion over another. It's all about how you live your life.
You could practice Santeria or Satanism and I doubt anyone would care as long as your don't go killing random people you kidnap off the street.
At the same time, you could be a God-fearing Catholic who reads the Bible and never misses a mass, but if you cheat people and beat your wife and kids, you are no better than the Devil worshipers.

You can fool the guy on the street every day of your life. But you can't fool God. You think Fred Phelps, David Koresh or Jim Jones are enjoying the light of the Heavenly Spirit right now? Think again.

You can debate the existence of God all you want. I grew up in that world, so I know what it's like. I've seen both sides.
I am guessing there are untold numbers of men who didn't believe in God until they were trapped in a confined space under enemy fire. Or been in a car wreck or a house fire. Or perhaps sat helplessly while a loved one sat near death in front of them.

It's not an argument to me. It's a difference of opinion. And I'm not changing mine.

I agree that the life we live is more important than our beliefs. Jess said that he would know his people by their work and deeds. He did not say by their beliefs.

Have you noted how few here show Jesus like woks an deeds in terms of how they respond to questioning?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Wrong.
just the opposite.



You have the choice of attributing what is to either nature or God.

You have chosen God on the same evidence where I choose nature.

You seem to have abandoned or deflected from your Kanlan argument so don't bug me.

You keep asking for direct debate yet blew me off when I attempted it showing just how dishonest you are.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

You have the choice of attributing what is to either nature or God.
You have chosen God on the same evidence where I choose nature.
You seem to have abandoned or deflected from your Kanlan argument so don't bug me.


No, the evidence is in FAVOR of a created and designed universe.
no, i did not abandon the kalam argument it's part of the series of items that points to a creator. that's included in the longer video BTW.
I suspect you didn't watch it.
so please remain bugged.




You keep asking for direct debate yet blew me off when I attempted it showing just how dishonest you are.
Regards
DL
"...I attempted it showing just how dishonest you are."
sheesh, Well it would have been better if you had engaged the arguments. but you have no good replies so dodges and attempts at showing how "dishonest" I supposedly am stand in as a substitutes for clear reason, facts or logic.

I'm still waiting for a series of direct replies from you on several points Gnostic. At this point i think i'll just leave you to your soapboxes.
Until you learn to reply in a honest manner it's not worth it.