|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:40:27 [Permalink]
|
My goodness, what a grand amount of verve. You certainly posses more enthusiasm than I. It is hard sometimes, for me at least, to tell all that a person is thinking when they have only written a few dozen lines. I tend to react to them based on similar statements I've heard in the past from completely different people. It is wrong of me to do so. But I recognize it as a survival behavior left over from our hunter/gather past, so I forgive me. I hope you will too.
Now then, you said, " I never said evolution is an atheist credo." But you previously said " In other words you are turning evolution into your God."
You can see how I might be confused.
I am still confused. Perhaps I don't understand what it is you mean when you say God. As I have said before I lack the belief in gods, as they are classically understood. I don't feel the same about the physical world. Some time I'll tell you how fond I am of gravity and inertia.
Science is, simply put, the study of the natural world. This study of how things work has over the centuries has had the side effect of giving plausible explanations for phenomena that had been attributed to doings of the Gods.
Vulcan doesn't hammer out lightning. Poseidon does not cause plate tectonics. Mazda does not have a mighty bow of many colors, it is only light refracted through rain drops.
None of these scientific explanations has the beauty or the human appeal of the old metaphysical explanations. Lightning a combination of free electrons and friction—how mundane can you get? Not a soul satisfying answer.
Morals as viewed as the human equivalent of animal behavior lacks eloquence. It portrays humans as just another species of animal living on Earth. It takes noble MAN, he who was created in the image of the Creator of the universe, and makes him a...a... primate. A primate subject to "the basic stupidity that is evolution."
And have no doubt about it—evolution is total stupidity. It is absolutely mindless, purposeless, brutal and unspeakable wasteful.
It is also a fact.
"So morality helps humanity as a species to survive, I agree but so what? Why does any of this matter under atheism?"
Because we are an animal like any other animal and subject to the evolved behaviors of our species. Directly as Atheists—because this life at this time and in this place is all that there is. Moral behavior makes it as long and as plesant for all involved as possible.When you are not looking forward to an eternal life (after you die and rot—does that really make any sense to you at all?) you have to make the best of what you've got.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
 |
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:41:51 [Permalink]
|
First CS, now Jacobson. "How can an atheist have a sense of universal values?"
We, the non-theists, have said, time and again, an atheist can easily have a sense of universal values. It simply comes from recognizing that you live in a greater community and that there are rules which make living in such a comunity better for everyone. A simple rule is that, since you don't want to be murdered, raped, or stolen from, perhaps you shouldn't murder, rape, or steal others. How hard is that to understand?
And yet, this idiot "debate" rages on, despite the questions being answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN. No sonner is the above said than someone is jumping up and saying, "Yes, but HOW CAN ATHEISTS HAVE A SENSE OF UNIVERSAL MORALITY?"
I'm sorry if you don't like the answer. I'm sorry if it doesn't personally make sense to you. I'm sorry if it conflicts with other ideas you may have. You want to know how an atheist feels about something and atheists are telling you.
This whole mess started with CS assuming that a president who is atheists would have no good reason not to kill so-called useless citizens. Despite his quotes from Rhetoric 101, he has been shown that this is not, in fact, the case. We have stated, time and again, that atheists do have a sense of what is right and wrong, and what is moral. We were then asked how that can be? That was addressed above. It's got nothing to do with evolution, it's a simple fact that atheists can still live with other humans and can, in fact, enact laws so that all humans can live together easier.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:42:51 [Permalink]
|
I think that sums it up pretty well.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Is it possible for a Xian to be a moral person?
Most Xians would consider that a ridiculous question, but let me put forward what our friend "He" would call a thought experiment.
A generous and kindly man finds himself in a very bad neighborhood one day. He is appalled by what he sees. Poverty, crime, sickness are everywhere. The kindly man would like to help, but what can he do? He decides to give these people every cent that he has on him. There are so many needy people that he realizes that this would be an empty gesture. Then he hits upon the plan of giving all his money to just one needy person. That would at least alleviate one persons misery. How the choose which of these many deserving people? He decides to give all his money to the first poor person who asks for help.
The generous man doesn't have to wait long. Within minutes another man approaches him.
"I'm so poor," complains this fellow, "that I have no food to feed my children. I'm desperate."
Why this is just the person I had in mind, thinks the generous man, All my money is his. The generous man starts to take his wallet out of his pocket.
At this point the desperate man takes a gun and sticks the muzzle between the generous man's eyes.
"Give me all your money or I'll blow your brains out!"
The generous man hands over his cash.
So the question is—was that an act of charity? I contend that it was not. The instant the threat of punishment arose it stopped being charity, even though it was the mans full intention to give away all his money.
The same would apply to Xians. Even though they fully intend to be moral people as soon as the concept of sin (the displeasing & possibility of being punished by a God) is introduced morality becomes a moot point. Morality becomes a matter of coercion and makes it impossible for a believer to be truly moral no matter what behavior they demonstrate.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Well, I can see that nobody here is able to grasp what I am saying, so I will cease this fools debate. Before I go though, I will reiterate what I said concerning why Christians follow morality.
First we must ask the question, are Christians moral people? I can tell you from my experience, and from the bibles teachings (old and new testaments) that we are not.
The whole point of Christianity is that we admit we are sinners and deserve to go to hell, and ask God, through the work of Jesus, to forgive us and remake us in His image. That is why I have no problems with sinners joining the church. Whether liar, murderer, thief, rapist, "Christian", or atheist, all are equally evil in the eyes of the Lord. That is what I mean by universal morality, to break the very morals of the universe. We Christians do not follow morality out fear that God will punish us, for that is what all of us already deserve. We try to follow what we believe to be God's rules out of gratitude that He has dealt with us mercifully and saved us. That is what the bible says, and that is what true bible believers hold to. So all of you atheists out there get it right for a change. Thank you.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jacobson:
Whether liar, murderer, thief, rapist, "Christian", or atheist, all are equally evil in the eyes of the Lord. . .We Christians do not follow morality out fear that God will punish us, for that is what all of us already deserve. We try to follow what we believe to be God's rules out of gratitude that He has dealt with us mercifully and saved us.
Man. And to think people wonder how I can hold the "illogical" stance of Atheism.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:48:46 [Permalink]
|
I jumped into this thread because I felt that science offers an explanation for how we conduct ourselves that wasn't being considered. A few of you have elaborated on that view quite nicely. Thanks! Here is my reply to Christian Skeptics take on my original posting. I will not continue to debate this since It is my belief, based on Christian Skeptics reply, that, as Paul Simon once sang, "a man hears what he want's to hear and disregards the rest...."
For Christian Skeptic, well gosh.
Kil: The logical basis for a universal morality is that it works.
>ChristianSkeptic (CS): An appeal to pragmatism as a logical basis for morality is the logical fallacy of non-sequtur. <
I wasn't making an appeal to pragmatism. I was offering a scientific explanation for what we call morality. It's as simple as this. No species survives beyond it's ability to adapt to change. Humans are very adaptable. I'm suggesting that morality is an adaptive trait.
(CS) >Pragmatism is neither logical nor universal because it does not follow that just because a certain moral system works for one cultural that it works for others.
>In fact, one cultures moral system can work, and thus be morally justified, if it so chooses to enhance its well-being and chances of survival at the expense of another. <
True. So you agree that morality is an adaptive trait since one cultures morality may not work for all cultures. The constant is that every culture has a morality that works for them. When it stops working, that culture becomes another culture with another morality, or they simply perish. The bigger picture is that at this point in our history we have the ability to destroy all of humanity. A global nuclear war, for example, could take us all out. Not to worry though. Some other animal would rise to the top of the food chain. Probably an animal with no thoughts about morality...
>>Kil: …We never would have made it this far if we behaved in a manner that was detrimental to our survival.
CS: This is a question begging (Who is we?) gross generalization. If you mean by we, all of humanity then it's a gross generalization since humanity would still exist even if (God forbid) all of Western civilization disappeared.
If you simply meant the U.S. then your statement is a hasty generalization. Since all of humanity is not dependent on America's survival.<<
I meant it as I said it. Survival is the most important function of a species. I also think its fair to say that most cultures frown on many of the same things. Murder is not a highly regarded practice almost everywhere.
>>Kil: …Morality is by agreement…
CS: This is the logical fallacy of agrumentun ad populum. Morality by agreement is no more than public opinion, which is subject to change.
For example, U.S. public sentiment has changed from the enslavement of West Africans to preferential policies for government designated victim groups.<<
You agree with me while not agreeing. Whatever. I would call this a shift in our morals. In the U.S. public opinion is where our morals spring from. That may not be true everywhere but it is true here.
>>Kil: Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Why? Because, if freely done, those activities would create an environment that would surly threaten the species as a whole.
CS: I guess by species you rally mean the United States. OK then, Kil, how do you account for the amazing paradox that is the American experience?
The paradox being that despite the obvious substantial wanton disregard of the rule of law in America this country is still the most powerful economic and military force in the world.
In comparing the United States with the other major industrialized nations, Andrew L. Shapiro writes, “We're number one in billionaires and we're number one in the percentage of population who have been the victim of a crime…The American paradox continues; in the words of one recent study ‘the wealthiest society in the world has |
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:50:16 [Permalink]
|
ChristianSkeptic: Your thought experiment, JohnPaul Slater, is a strawman argument.
A Christian has a obligating to be moral whereas the threat of force takes away that moral obligation.
Furthermore, God's morals are not arbitrary. Morals, or as better stated by Dr.William L. Craig, “objective moral values are the very nature of God and that the commands of God flow necessarily out of His moral nature. Because God is just, He commands things that are for us just. So the good is neither arbitrary, nor is it something outside and above God. Rather the good is the moral nature of God Himself, which is expressed necessarily in His moral commands, which become for us our moral duties.”
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:51:17 [Permalink]
|
JohnPaul Slater: Many of us have, I am sure, been subjected to the Christian slander of being told that Atheists lack morality.
ChristianSkeptic (CS): You are missing the point. The thought experiment demonstrates the point that atheists have no good reason to be moral.
JohnPaul Slater: Morals,… can be explained with the use of very simple Darwinian evolution.
CS: How does this directly answer the thought experiment?
JohnPaul Slater: …" For a group to operate efficiently requires a "group dynamic." A set of animal behaviors that bonds the group together. …Animals that fail to follow the group dynamic are forced to leave the group…
CS: The atheist president of the thought experiment, being part of the environment, is simply doing the natural selection in the best interest of the people/group.
The question being if you object to his policy what good reason could you provide to change his mind?
JohnPaul Slater: Theory Two: …Darwinian evolution….The group dynamic would evolve to fit the environmental niche that a given population found itself in.
CS: The philosophical objection to Darwinian evolution as a theory of morality is that it is not a logical basis for morality. It is non-sequtur. Just because humans have evolved "group dynamic (morals)" it does not follow therefore they should be moral to other groups.
In fact, one group can enhance their chances of survival and increase their well-being at the expense of others.
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:53:06 [Permalink]
|
Legomancer: First CS, now Jacobson. "How can an atheist have a sense of universal values?"
ChristianSkeptic (CS): That is not the question. The question is what good reason do you have to be moral?
Legomancer: …universal values.simply comes from recognizing that you live in a greater community and that there are rules which make living in such a comunity better for everyone.
CS: If these rules are based on public consensus it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Therefore, your communit does not have a good reason to be moral.
The problem with public consensus as a basis for morality is that public consensus is subject to change. For example, the U.S. has changed from the enslavement of west Africans to preferential polices for government designated victim groups.
Legomancer: A simple rule is that, since you don't want to be murdered, raped, or stolen from, perhaps you shouldn't murder, rape, or steal others.
CS: Consistent with atheism one could say since murder, rape and stealing are just a matter of calculated risk, if one can get away with it then it's “OK/permissible” and reasonable to do it.
Also, one need not fear that such things will happen to you if you have the power to defend yourself. Moreover, those who are vulnerable to such deeds should, and sometimes do, simple accept it (fatalism).
Legomancer: …atheists do have a sense of what is right and wrong, …it's a simple fact that atheists can still live with other humans
CS: I have made it clear that this can be true.
Legomancer: and can, in fact, enact laws so that all humans can live together easier.
CS: The enactment of law may be seen as an appeal to force and thus not a good reason to be moral.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:54:49 [Permalink]
|
CS: The enactment of law may be seen as an appeal to force and thus not a good reason to be moral.
That's one reason why the death penalty is such a failure.
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:57:51 [Permalink]
|
Kil: The logical basis for a universal morality is that it works.
ChristianSkeptic (CS): An appeal to pragmatism as a logical basis for morality is the logical fallacy of non-sequtur.
Kil: I wasn't making an appeal to pragmatism. I was offering a scientific explanation for what we call morality.
CS: In that case we could have avoided this misunderstanding if you had written, “The scientific explanation for a universal morality…”
Kil: …I'm suggesting that morality is an adaptive trait.
CS: Surprise, I do not agree. I suggest that morality exist objectively. Morality holds true independent of human conduct and therefore, is not a product of human adaptation.
For me the existence of morality, or better-stated, objective moral values is analogous to the existence of the laws of logic. That is they are trans-cultural, universal and invariant in nature.
Kil: ..The constant is that every culture has a morality that works for them. When it stops working, that culture becomes another culture with another morality, or they simply perish.
CS: So which came first the culture or morality? It appears you are stating that morality = culture.
This would be reductionism that does not explain the basis for morality but serves only to explain it away as any sense of a universal moral system becomes lost in the depths of the innumerable contradictory patterns of behavior, thoughts and feelings of the worlds' cultures.
Kil: …A global nuclear war, for example, could take us all out. Not to worry though.
CS: If in the “bigger picture” eternity is not an option for anyone then all the more we should worry since this life is all we have.
Kil: I meant it as I said it. Survival is the most important function of a species.
CS: The question remains is how does your moral system, by way of reason, resolve conflicting interests given scarcity and the ensuing and sometime violent competition over scarce resources?
Kil: I also think its fair to say that most cultures frown on many of the same things. Murder is not a highly regarded practice almost everywhere.
CS: The problem here is how does your non-theist moral system resolve the problem of war with one side saying the other is engaging in murder, which is morally wrong, but their actions is an example of killing, which is permissible?
Kil: …Morality is by agreement…
CS: This is the logical fallacy of agrumentun ad populum. Morality by agreement is no more than public opinion, which is subject to change.
Kil: You agree with me while not agreeing.
CS: No I am charging that you have committed a logical fallacy. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe you.
Kil: Whatever. I would call this a shift in our morals.
CS: I would submit that this is not morality at all, but culture. Culture, I submit cannot be a basis for “universal morals.”
Kil: In the U.S. public opinion is where our morals spring from.
CS: This is debatable, but I will pass it up.
Kil: Not everyone signs on to the contract of it's culture.
CS: The question being what good reason do they have to in the first place?
If for example morals in the U.S. spring from public opinion, as you have asserted, then criminals are not being unreasonable in rejecting them since its just a matter of pubic opinion (argumentum ad populum).
Kil: When the none signers out number the signers the culture either changes or perishes..
CS: However, consistent with atheism a non-signer may say that the number of signers may forever outnumber the non-signers because signers, that is most people, are a group of soft minded, shallow, irrational, idiots deluding themselves.
CS: [criminality] is being tried with quite a lot of success.
Kil: Success would imply that we have adopted the murderers morality here.
CS: No. Success means one does not have to be moral. In fact, it makes better since for an atheist to reject morality.
Kil: We have laws to dea |
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:58:33 [Permalink]
|
Since the computer lab I use will close today and not reopen until Jan. 2, I can only repond to new posts no sooner than Jan. 2.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 19:00:28 [Permalink]
|
You say "consistent with atheism" quite a lot. Could you explain what you believe is consistent with atheism? I think the major problem between you (and Jacobsen) and the rest is your definition of atheism. You may not say it, but your posts imply that atheists are immoral, and that a reasonable person shouldn't have any problem with mass murder, if it benefits society as a whole. Your argument is really way too simplistic, as the number of variables to a "happy" society, as you call it, is far from just economic. One could reasonably dissuade a president who proposes what you describe by mentioning that other countries may not think too highly (as has been demonstrated in the past) of mass murder of it's innocent citizens. But I think your hidden argument is really just that you think that morals can't be reasoned, they just "are", and since atheists rely upon (in your mind I'm sure 'worship') reason, therefore we can't be moral. Atheists say that there aren't any universal morals, and that we base our morals on practicality and our behaviour (moral or otherwise) is weighed against our acceptance in society. I not only don't kill people because I would not be well liked by others, and also go to jail, but I also feel empathy towards other humans. Many things play into forming our morals, and they all have a basis in reason, in one way or another.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 19:01:50 [Permalink]
|
"...do we not have a multi-millennial history of thinkers and philosophers who attempted in-depth discussions of human morality? Is Kant's moral imperative necessarily given by God? And what about Plato, Aristotle, or Bertrand Russell? In fact, the argument can be easily made that divine laws as they are expressed in the Bible or the Koran are simply the canonization of human agreements and social contracts, girdled with super-human aura to make them more easily enforceable."
The Case Against God:
Science and the Falsifiability Question in Theology
By Massimo Pigliucci http://www.skeptic.com/archives05.html
Just thought this was relevant to this discussion.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
