Athiesm and disproving God

[McBell]

The only way to find the phrase "evolutionary origins of morality" compelling is to absolutely assume morality isn't a real thing and things like the shared horror humanity experiences when an atrocity like the Holocaust is uncovered is a mere matter of offending our good taste and not diametrically opposed to a way we all feel beings should treat their fellow man. If relative morality is true, we should have no real reason to abhor Nazism. We should also have no real reason to see some moralities as better than others aside from them being more convenient for us because there is no true objective morality they are being measured against. The morality we are faced with in reality can be quite inconvenient to the pursuit of self-preservation. Those who embody morality to its greatest extent care for others as they care for themselves, a strong survival disadvantage from the perspective of evolution.

If evolution was the cause of empathy, it really should have killed off that weak trait long ago.

False Dichotomies are fun, I agree.
Not the least bit convincing, but fun none the less.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point I made against Revoltingest was that his belief that morality arose from evolution is NOT compelling despite his instance to the contrary.

I haven't started insisting yet. I merely opined. Moreover, I haven't even presented an argument or evidence yet. I'm flattered that you want to make the discussion about me (& my shortcomings), but this avoids the issues.

 

[Bunyip]

The only way to find the phrase "evolutionary origins of morality" compelling is to absolutely assume morality isn't a real thing

Whether or not absolute morality exists in the sense you mean is irrelevant - it makes no practical difference whatsoever. Morality exists and has weight and merit whether or not absolute morality exists.

and things like the shared horror humanity experiences when an atrocity like the Holocaust is uncovered is a mere matter of offending our good taste and not diametrically opposed to a way we all feel beings should treat their fellow man. If relative morality is true, we should have no real reason to abhor Nazism.

Well that is abig assumption - what made you think so?

We should also have no real reason to see some moralities as better than others aside from them being more convenient for us because there is no true objective morality they are being measured against.

How so? What difference could it make? We can not know if absolute morality even exists - so whether it exists or not makes no difference whatsoever in practice.

The morality we are faced with in reality can be quite inconvenient to the pursuit of self-preservation. Those who embody morality to its greatest extent care for others as they care for themselves, a strong survival disadvantage from the perspective of evolution.

Wrong, complex social mores are a survival advantage for social species.

If evolution was the cause of empathy, it really should have killed off that weak trait long ago.

Erm....no, complex moral codes are a survival advantage for social species. You should read some of the scientific work in this field that you are rejecting.

 

[Prophet]

False Dichotomies are fun, I agree.
Not the least bit convincing, but fun none the less.

Blithe, thoughtless dismissal is also fun.

 

[McBell]

Blithe, thoughtless dismissal is also fun.

I am not interested in playing Pigeon Chess with you.
If you are up for an actual real and honest discussion...

 

[Prophet]

I haven't started insisting yet. I merely opined. Moreover, I haven't even presented an argument or evidence yet. I'm flattered that you want to make the discussion about me (& my shortcomings), but this avoids the issues.

What does "compelling" mean to you?

 

[Ouroboros]

The morality we are faced with in reality can be quite inconvenient to the pursuit of self-preservation.

Yes and no. Depends.

Numbers can beat strength. Which can be seen in many species in nature.

Those who embody morality to its greatest extent care for others as they care for themselves, a strong survival disadvantage from the perspective of evolution.

Morality builds strong community which is strength in numbers instead of the strength of individual heroes.

We are a social animal.

If evolution was the cause of empathy, it really should have killed off that weak trait long ago.

No, because evolution, sociology, psychology can explain why there's strength in a common goal and united values and mores, which are the foundations for morality.

So... still, this doesn't exclude God since God could have created a world that had the purpose to strive for moral evolution. Hence, your claim is still non sequitur.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only way to find the phrase "evolutionary origins of morality" compelling is to absolutely assume morality isn't a real thing

I don't assume any such thing. It's real as any other emergent property of a system. Where you might see morality as something decreed by a god, I see it as a result of eons of evolution. (It serves the useful function of productive coexistence.)

....and things like the shared horror humanity experiences when an atrocity like the Holocaust is uncovered is a mere matter of offending our good taste and not diametrically opposed to a way we all know beings should treat their fellow man.

As we saw, this horror was not shared by all, particularly by the perpetrators. Morality has great variability with culture. Were it absolute, I'd expect to see more uniformity.

If relative morality is true, we should have no real reason to abhor Nazism.

We moral relativists have good reason to abhor it. It violates my sense of morality, even though it's not absolute.

We should also have no real reason to see some moralities as better than others aside from them being more convenient for us because there is no true objective morality they are being measured against. The morality we are faced with in reality can be quite inconvenient to the pursuit of self-preservation. Those who embody morality to its greatest extent care for others as they care for themselves, a strong survival disadvantage from the perspective of evolution.

Whose morality is the absolutely true one? Xians? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Or one of the many less popular religions?

If evolution was the cause of empathy, it really should have killed off that weak trait long ago.

Evolution is not so simple, & the trait of a tendency towards a loosely shared morality is not so weak.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does "compelling" mean to you?

In my context, "convincing".

 

[Prophet]

Yes and no. Depends.

Numbers can beat strength. Which can be seen in many species in nature.

There is strength in numbers, sure. However, if something in our herd instinct caused us to sacrifice personal evolutionary fitness, as in the ability to care about another so deeply that you are willing to die to protect, the deaths of selfless individuals should be serving to place a limit on what morality asks of us. Rather, than evolution shaping morality and killing off self-sacrifice, their sacrifice inspires us to want to be like them.

 

[Bunyip]

There is strength in numbers, sure. However, if something in our herd instinct caused us to sacrifice personal evolutionary fitness, as in the ability to care about another so deeply that you are willing to die to protect, the deaths of selfless individuals should be serving to place a limit on what morality asks of us. Rather, than evolution shaping morality and killing off self-sacrifice, their sacrifice inspires us to want to be like them.

Self sacrifice has evolutionary advantages, not disadvantages.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is strength in numbers, sure. However, if something in our herd instinct caused us to sacrifice personal evolutionary fitness, as in the ability to care about another so deeply that you are willing to die to protect, the deaths of selfless individuals should be serving to place a limit on what morality asks of us. Rather, than evolution shaping morality and killing off self-sacrifice, their sacrifice inspires us to want to be like them.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Self-sacrifice exists. People also sacrifice themselves for others. People do that in countries that are not Judeo-Christian or even monotheistic. Even atheist people in China can do it. So there's something I'm missing in your argument. Why is what you say above somehow showing that relative or subjective morality based on social format contradictory to God's existence? There's still nothing to tie those two things together. Still, your claim that subjective morality would be in conflict with God's existence is still non sequitur. Please explain.

 

[Ouroboros]

Self sacrifice has evolutionary advantages, not disadvantages.

Yup.

Soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, and many others are putting themselves at risk of harm and death to protect ideas, ideologies, political views, patriotism, and so on. And if they win a war, the idea they fought for won... for a moment until corrupt elements take over and so on, but anyway... LOL!

 

[Prophet]

I don't assume any such thing. It's real as any other emergent property of a system. Where you might see morality as something decreed by a god, I see it as a result of eons of evolution. (It serves the useful function of productive coexistence.)

Were you to claim to believe in scientific realism and at the same time claim that scientific laws were a emergent property of the universe, I would be just as puzzled as I am right now as you seem to claim that moral realism and morality being an emergent phenomenon are not mutually exclusive claims. They plainly are.

As we saw, this horror was not shared by all, particularly by the perpetrators. Morality has great variability with culture. Were it absolute, I'd expect to see more uniformity.

If morality were absolute in your sense of the word meaning uniform, wrongdoing simply wouldn't happen. This is not at all what I mean by absolute morality. What I mean is that there must be an actual morality we are measuring against if we find some moralities truer than others. If there is no actual morality, there is no reason to think civil morality superior to or truer than savage morality aside from selfish concerns.

We moral relativists have good reason to abhor it. It violates my sense of morality, even though it's not absolute.

Moral relativists, of all people, should be the very first to empathize with Nazi morality as both seem to believe that morality is a mere matter of convenience and neither is really better or worse than the other, just different.

Whose morality is the absolutely true one? Xians? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Or one of the many less popular religions?

You name all of these religions as if they are really different moralities. They aren't. Which of these religions admire the survival drive of those who would betray anyone who has ever been good to them? Which religion or view of morality would place high those who would torture animals for fun?

Evolution is not so simple, & the trait of a tendency towards a loosely shared morality is not so weak.

The way Darwin wrote evolution, it was very simple. It was forced to become complex when people who didn't understand erroneously used to explain the rise of individually disadvantageous traits.

 

[Prophet]

In my context, "convincing".

You were convinced by the phrase "evolutionary origins of morality" in itself. It doesn't look so much like you were compelled or convinced but rather saw an idea you already agreed with and accepted it by virtue of your bias.

 

[Prophet]

Self sacrifice has evolutionary advantages, not disadvantages.

This opinion is delusional, twists the actual mechanic by which evolution operates, and is voiced by the forum leader in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Bunyip]

This opinion is delusional, twists the actual mechanic by which evolution operates, and is voiced by the forum leader in intellectual dishonesty.

Flinging mud is easy mate, and of course speaks far more about you than it does about me.. The fact remains that self sacrifice has evolutionary advantages - there are a vast number of studies to back that up.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To all atheist who wish to answers this:

How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)?

Seems you answerd your own question right here. We claim that we don't believe gods (and other mythological creatures etc.) don't exist because of the lack of evidence. It's not our job to prove your negative is a positive....

If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god?

No because right here in your question you prove our point for us. Say you're a Christian, Muslim or a Jew...Surely you don't believe as the Wiccans believe. Surely you don't believe as other Pagans believe. Why don't you? If you're saying that your books written by the hands of men have validity to them then surely you acknowledge the religious beliefs of others. Surely you belive their gods have just as much credibility as yours.....right?.....

What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?

As an atheist I simply belive theist lack evidence for the existence of gods.....

 

[Prophet]

Flinging mud is easy mate, and of course speaks far more about you than it does about me.. The fact remains that self sacrifice has evolutionary advantages - there are a vast number of studies to back that up.

This is, again, delusional, by way of ignoring the actual mechanism which evolution shapes species. Evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, where inferior traits are determined by being killed off with the beings who possess them. Evolution CAN explain the evolution of cooperative behaviors such as symbiotic relationships in which both parties benefit. Evolution CANNOT explain the evolution of altruistic behaviors such as self-sacrifice in which one party willingly enters annihilation for the sake of the other party.

Possessing the fullest expression of morality in which one is willing to sacrifice itself for others in genetic form should make one far less likely to survive amongst peers who do not share such lofty notions, making self-sacrifice a genetic defect which evolution should serve to annihilate over time.

 

[Bunyip]

This is, again, delusional, by way of ignoring the actual mechanism which evolution shapes species. Evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, where inferior traits are determined by being killed off with the beings who possess them. Evolution CAN explain the evolution of cooperative behaviors such as symbiotic relationships in which both parties benefit. Evolution CANNOT explain the evolution of altruistic behaviors such as self-sacrifice in which one party willingly enters annihilation for the sake of the other party.

Of course it can. There are thousands of studies showing how altruism and self sacrifice can emerge evolutionarily. Self sacrifice and altruism are beneficial traits in social species.

Possessing the fullest expression of morality in which one is willing to sacrifice itself for others in genetic form should make one far less likely to survive amongst peers who do not share such lofty notions, making self-sacrifice a genetic defect which evolution should serve to annihilate over time.

Not at all, they have a survival advantage for social species. Which is what pretty much every person resp8ndijg to you has pointed out.