Athiesm and disproving God

[Ouroboros]

This is not what I asked for. I asked for examples OTHER than morality of evolution giving rise to traits that benefit the species and hurting the individual.... and you supplied me with examples of birds, fish, horses, antibodies, ants, etc. acting MORALLY.

Uh...???

Those are examples of traits that benefit the species and hurting the individual, and morality is only a term that's used for human affairs, not animals, so it sounds to me that you're asking me to "give me an example of X equals to not X." Which is a logical contradiction. You're asking for a examples where a contradiction to be true. That will never happen. You're request is unreasonable.

Then the challenge back would be, prove that your God can create square circles or something equally silly. It doesn't prove anything since the request is setup from beginning to be a failure.

 

[Prophet]

Also, I should point out that "altruism" and "self-sacrifice" even operate at the molecular level--it's called apoptosis. Cells literally commit cell suicide in order to benefit the larger organism; this is done for many reasons, for example there are too many cells of a particular kind, or the organism is changing (think tadpole to frog). This is a basic type of "altruism," granted, but its evolutionary implications are pretty clear. Those living things, operating as a community, benefit (and thus survive and reproduce) when acting in concert, even to such extent as for some components to kill themselves for the greater good. Your focus is too much on the individual. Compare the number of progenies from a single subject to the total progenies from a large community; now, the single subject could spend its time mating profusely, but if it were to self-sacrifice for the continued survival and well-being of the larger community so that the other individuals could procreate...well, do the math.

Genghis Khan likely procreated on the order of 1,000s of times on his ride of terror. My "friend" Dan has kids with different mothers all over town. Neither care much more than a crap about the kids they make. Does your gorilla math assume that these kids all die off because Genghis and Dan won't be there for them?

 

[Prophet]

Perhaps you're use of "emerge" is unrelated to "emergent" in this context.

Perhaps I am misusing a word, but the way I mean emerge, I am using it in response to your referring to morality as "emergent" meaning that at some point in the past, it must have emerged, and did not exist since the beginning of time.

But Boyle's law would've been noticeable as soon after the big bang as particles formed.

I think we agree that Boyle's law did not emerge in my sense of the word when Boyle discovered it.

People, believers & nons alike, are always claiming moral superiority over others. Everyone prefers their own personal morality. Why bring this up?

There are lots of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who would prefer to oppress gays and women rather than give them equal rights on account of their claimed moral superiority. But are they actually morally superior? Are they treating others the way they would like to be treated? No, they aren't.

How could we have so much moral progress towards equal treatment of all independent of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion if there is no real standard of morality we are progressing towards?

- I've clearly said that morality is both genetic & cultural, therefore not purely a social construct.
- You reason that I should sympathize with Nazis. But I don't. The problem must be in the 'reasoning'.

You seemingly consciously avoided addressing me here. In spite of professing to hold a relative morality philosophy that can no more justify blaming a Nazi for murdering Jews than it can blame him for the color of his hair, why don't you sympathize with Nazis? For all you know, killing Jews gets Nazis to the seventh heaven with 70 or so virgins. And there's no REAL standard behind morality that Nazis could have looked to deep within themselves to escape what they were indoctrinated with.

It might sound the same, but it isn't. Even we relativists can have strongly held beliefs/preferences. But we know they aren't absolutely true.

That sounds intellectually exhausting.

Exactly! I do view it thus.

Do you commonly refer to the acts or words of those who merely disagree with you as "heinous"? Furthermore, have you ever seen a Islamist beheading video? Did you think to yourself, "This is disgusting relative to my own perspective, BUT from HIS perspective the dude on the block is an infidel and a symbol of the country that oppresses his so that makes this a relatively good beheading." I really doubt you sincerely view it this way.

It does not. Think of treatment of untouchables in India.

I don't have to go that far to find religions treating outsiders like garbage as I've already discussed how Christian fundamentalists treat homosexuals. However, even though I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist, there was an age where I was able to see large parts of what I had been taught was not only incorrect but also morally abhorrent.

But you're wrong....I don't empathize with them. Once again, my relative morals are still strongly held...I just don't call them "THE TRUTH".

But, if you had no choice in the matter and were indoctrinated into Nazi morality where Jews can and should be murdered for fun and profit, there was no other recourse for you other than Jew killing as there is no real standard of morality for you to fall back on. If you had no choices in the matter as your philosophy would suggest, you should also bear no moral responsibility.

 

[Prophet]

Uh...???

Those are examples of traits that benefit the species and hurting the individual, and morality is only a term that's used for human affairs, not animals, so it sounds to me that you're asking me to "give me an example of X equals to not X." Which is a logical contradiction. You're asking for a examples where a contradiction to be true. That will never happen. You're request is unreasonable.

Then the challenge back would be, prove that your God can create square circles or something equally silly. It doesn't prove anything since the request is setup from beginning to be a failure.

How about a mouth designed to only be able to eat half the amount of food of its peers to promote sharing? If evolution can get me to willingly jump off a cliff for my loved ones, it should, no doubt, be supplying us with lesser miracles that benefit the group at cost of hurting the individual a little bit (rather than getting him killed) on a regular basis?

BTW my dogs are at least as moral as I am.

 

[Ouroboros]

How about a mouth designed to only be able to eat half the amount of food of its peers to promote sharing?

Many birds eat the worm and then regurgitate it to feed their chicks. Is that good enough?

There are spiders that carry their young ones around and share the food with them.

Having a "half mouth" is just silly. We're talking about the evolution of the actions.

If evolution can get me to willingly jump off a cliff for my loved ones, it should, no doubt, be supplying us with lesser miracles that benefit the group at cost of hurting the individual a little bit (rather than getting him killed) on a regular basis?

The thing is, altruism and morality is partially genetic and partially learned (social construct). Having the ability to learn moral code is very much genetic because the moral center is (if I remember right) mostly in the frontal lobe. If that's harmed, we can't recognize hurting others. The "error signal" isn't working. But morality is also learned. It's built upon thousands of years of social reasoning. We can see this in cultural anthropology and history. Just by looking at how ancient people looked at right and wrong compared to us today. It has evolved. Our thoughts and ideas of what is right and wrong has changed and evolved. So maybe that's where the problem lies? What you're saying is that morality isn't just genetic evolution but also cultural and social evolution? If so, yes, that's very true.

BTW my dogs are at least as moral as I am.

Partially. But I agree that they do have a lot of understanding of right and wrong. They have a lower or smaller version of it.

Like I was mentioning above, morality is also learned, not just innate. Parts are inherited in genetics, other parts are not. That's why kids who grow up in environment where morality and ethics isn't encouraged can end up having low understanding of right and wrong.

If you would study sociology, you would learn that morality stems from mores which are based on values. In other words, what our culture or upbringing teaches us about values will be the foundation for what we consider right and wrong, and that is our moral code.

 

[Prophet]

Many birds eat the worm and then regurgitate it to feed their chicks. Is that good enough?

There are spiders that carry their young ones around and share the food with them.

I asked for an example of evolution giving rise to a trait aside from moral behavior which hurts individual evolutionary fitness but helps the aggregate evolutionary fitness of the species. You have taken to naming moral behaviors in non-human species, qualifying this submission by classifying morality as something applying only to humanity. It further highlights the ridiculousness of your position that these animal behaviors you are naming, were they performed by a human, would epitomize morality. What is taking food out of your own mouth to feed your kids if not an example of selfless, moral behavior?

Having a "half mouth" is just silly. We're talking about the evolution of the actions.

I'm talking about things evolution can actually be demonstrated to influence such as physical size, shape, color, strength, and intelligence. I'm talking about how the measure of all of these attributes can passively be generated through the eons by the deaths of individuals who did not possess the most individually advantageous traits without regard to their positive effect on the entire species. And I'm contrasting them with the special case scenario you must invent for evolution to generate a trait that is individually disadvantageous and cannot be passively generated through the eons, but rather considers the well-being of the species like a God concept. When it comes to an alleged gene for self-sacrifice, a notable number of people who have such a gene would sacrifice themselves and lose opportunities to pass on their genes. The selfless gene should then strike us as a genetic disposition to develop a potentially fatal condition--a defect. The vast majority of humanity has not seen self-sacrifice in this way. Rather, those who have self-sacrificed are regularly immortalized in the memories and actions of the beings their sacrifice has inspired.

The thing is, altruism and morality is partially genetic and partially learned (social construct). Having the ability to learn moral code is very much genetic because the moral center is (if I remember right) mostly in the frontal lobe. If that's harmed, we can't recognize hurting others. The "error signal" isn't working. But morality is also learned. It's built upon thousands of years of social reasoning. We can see this in cultural anthropology and history. Just by looking at how ancient people looked at right and wrong compared to us today. It has evolved. Our thoughts and ideas of what is right and wrong has changed and evolved. So maybe that's where the problem lies? What you're saying is that morality isn't just genetic evolution but also cultural and social evolution? If so, yes, that's very true.

Your claims that altruism and morality are genetic are merely a logical implication of your original view that morality is a result of evolution, a claim I have repeatedly rejected on grounds we've been well over. Rather than rising to my challenge and showing why my rejection of your claim is unreasonable, you have resorted to stating a logical implication of your original view as fact and have used that to support an entire paragraph I really can't help but reject on the same grounds I rejected the original claim.

Partially. But I agree that they do have a lot of understanding of right and wrong. They have a lower or smaller version of it.

This is not really so much a function of their morality as their intelligence.

Like I was mentioning above, morality is also learned, not just innate. Parts are inherited in genetics, other parts are not. That's why kids who grow up in environment where morality and ethics isn't encouraged can end up having low understanding of right and wrong.

The multiplication tables are learned as well. Does it stand to reason that we could put whatever numbers we want in them and they'd continue to be correct and useful? Of course not. In my view, morality is not much different from this. I see plenty of cutthroat, hyper vigilant, fearful, ghetto mindset in the very neighborhood I walk my dogs through who will live and die never leaving an area 10 square miles. I believe these people could have a much bigger, and by almost all accounts better lives if they metaphorically put better answers in their moral multiplication tables.

 

[Ouroboros]

I asked for an example of evolution giving rise to a trait aside from moral behavior which hurts individual evolutionary fitness but helps the aggregate evolutionary fitness of the species.

How about Camponotus saundersi? Would that example do?

 

[Prophet]

How about Camponotus saundersi? Would that example do?

Jumping onto and smothering a live grenade is something a self-sacrificing, moral being might do for his friends in the context of combat. How, exactly, does the behavior of the kamikaze ant who sacrifices himself in a battle is not going well for his side fall outside the realm of moral, aside from your idea that morality only applies to humans?

 

[Prophet]

LOL No little buddy - no need to get all paranoid.

Your confusion is that you think evolution is about the individual - it isn't. Evolution is about the species.

I do not think evolution is "about the individual" but rather that evolution is a cold, passive, aimless process that doesn't care about individuals or species. The only way in which evolution is "about the individual" is the natural selection process which eliminates less evolutionary fit traits by the deaths of individuals who possess those traits. Bunyip claims evolution is "about the species" yet he would be hard pressed to name a physical characteristic of a being (something we all agree is shaped by evolution) which sacrifices individual evolutionary fitness for the sake of the species, because this is a special case scenario made up specifically as an excuse why evolution COULD be the cause of morality. For no other trait conferred by evolution (other than his alleged evolution-based morality) does all this "about the species" business need even be considered.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps I am misusing a word, but the way I mean emerge, I am using it in response to your referring to morality as "emergent" meaning that at some point in the past, it must have emerged, and did not exist since the beginning of time.

Well, my analogy is pretty much a badly beaten dead horse now. But for your edification, here's some info about the concept that phenomena will exist as the result of a stochastic system's existence.
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I opine that morality (like economics, cities, etc) is an emergent property of populations of intelligent beings.

There are lots of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who would prefer to oppress gays and women rather than give them equal rights on account of their claimed moral superiority. But are they actually morally superior? Are they treating others the way they would like to be treated? No, they aren't.

But they believe that their absolutely true morality, handed to them by their theology, is superior. You & I agree that they shouldn't oppress others. Do you believe that your morality on this issue is absolutely true? What is the source of this morality? For me, it's personal preference...not truth.

How could we have so much moral progress towards equal treatment of all independent of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion if there is no real standard of morality we are progressing towards?

What you call "progress", I see as simply what happens. But what of other 'progress', eg, increasing government surveillance of us, increasing socialism, increasing regulation of our lives, our population expanding while crowding out the natural environment? Are these things as universally true as the moral progress you favor?

You seemingly consciously avoided addressing me here.

No, I've been diligent about addressing your claims. Perhaps instead of continually claiming shortcomings on my part, you might address the issues, eh?

In spite of professing to hold a relative morality philosophy that can no more justify blaming a Nazi for murdering Jews than it can blame him for the color of his hair, why don't you sympathize with Nazis?

I've already answered this. Do you ask because you don't believe me or did you not read it?

For all you know, killing Jews gets Nazis to the seventh heaven with 70 or so virgins. And there's no REAL standard behind morality that Nazis could have looked to deep within themselves to escape what they were indoctrinated with.

It sounds like your argument is one of necessity, ie, it is so desired that it must be an absolute universal truth. If wishes were pigs, we'd all be awash in bacon.

That sounds intellectually exhausting.

I find it relaxing.

Do you commonly refer to the acts or words of those who merely disagree with you as "heinous"?

When I find them so, yes....often when I think of Republicans & Democrats in office.

Furthermore, have you ever seen a Islamist beheading video? Did you think to yourself, "This is disgusting relative to my own perspective, BUT from HIS perspective the dude on the block is an infidel and a symbol of the country that oppresses his so that makes this a relatively good beheading." I really doubt you sincerely view it this way.

You're erroneously inventing loopy thoughts for me.

I don't have to go that far to find religions treating outsiders like garbage as I've already discussed how Christian fundamentalists treat homosexuals. However, even though I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist, there was an age where I was able to see large parts of what I had been taught was not only incorrect but also morally abhorrent.

It sounds like you're rejecting the absolutely true morality of your faith, & replacing it with your personal one. Are we really so far apart?

But, if you had no choice in the matter and were indoctrinated into Nazi morality where Jews can and should be murdered for fun and profit, there was no other recourse for you other than Jew killing as there is no real standard of morality for you to fall back on. If you had no choices in the matter as your philosophy would suggest, you should also bear no moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility is something we assign to each other, whether we're moral relativists or universalists. I think the big difference between us not in our commitment to our morality, but our beliefs about its origins. You attribute it to some absolutely true & inerrant universal morality. I attribute it to a result of genetics & culture.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, and then if you have one hedonistic, manipulative being infiltrate a group of altruistic, trusting beings, is it not obvious that this individual receives the greatest advantage of anyone, gaining evolutionary fitness from everyone who gives freely and offering them nothing in return?

This is actually a real thing. Psychopaths are often extremely successful because of their ability to take advantage of people and do things many people are not able to do. However this advantage only works when the vast majority of people already have altruistic natures. And even though the non-altruistic individual may thrive it does not mean that he will increase in proportion in the community.

Although then we have social structure which dictates what is okay and what is not okay. If an individual is simply taking advantage of everyone else and doing nothing for the community they would be an outcast. So it is self regulating. Even if someone is altruistic it doesn't mean they will let you rape their daughter without a fight. The altruistic nature allows people to work together and put the need of the "all" over the need of the "self".

For example bee's and ants are far more altruistic than humans will ever be as a species. However this makes sense and no one ever seems to question it. Mainly because they don't have a "morality" or "goodness" that makes them do so but are simply viewed as mindless instinct driving them to protect something greater than themselves. A single bee sting kills the bee but may drive off a bear if several of them die to do this so the colony can live. If bee's simply didn't sting things in order to lengthen their own lives the hive would be destroyed and the queen dies and so does the colony.

Altruism is found in nature in more places than you think.

Evolution, as a passive force will allow traits that are a survival disadvantage to individuals to die off, in the long run shaping the species. Evolution, as a God concept will allow beings of lesser evolutionary fitness to overtake those of greater because this version of evolution does not work passively but rather has aims and desires for the development of species.

Evolution is the change in the species and not the individual. It would simply be a mutation in a single individual. But that individual passing that gene into the population gives a whole population an advantage rather than a single entity. In many cases this advantage works on the individual level giving each of a given population a higher "fitness" than other populations that were isolated and did not get the gene. Then there are mutations that are not necessarily beneficial to the individual but to the population. And the same effect is reached on the scale of the population.

There is no evolution as a god concept. There is theistic evolution which hasn't been supported by evidence as of yet. It is "possible" but we have no scientific reason to believe it to be the case.

 

[Ouroboros]

Jumping onto and smothering a live grenade is something a self-sacrificing, moral being might do for his friends in the context of combat. How, exactly, does the behavior of the kamikaze ant who sacrifices himself in a battle is not going well for his side fall outside the realm of moral, aside from your idea that morality only applies to humans?

Sorry, but I don't get you. I'm leaving this discussion with you because I can tell there's no gain on either side to be made here.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have found that many who reject the idea of God make arguments against ideas about how God created -the time frame in which he is said to have done so, etc....
and those ideas aren't usually correct or even biblical. The arguments don't usually have anything to do with the possibility of the existence of a life form with certain characteristics enabling extreme power, awareness, etc...

Many "creationists" have made assumptions about what is written in scripture, and refuse to consider anything else.
It is also true that many "evolutionists" have seen no proof of the existence of God (and have also heard errant and even outrageous claims about God and creation) -which also leads to assumptions based on that.

Science does not venture far from the unknown. It does not consider hearsay, but makes some assumptions which seem probable given what is known -then sets about proving whether or not they are true. Even when the assumption is then known to be false, new "knowns" are often learned and added to the rest, which direct further investigation.

As we plan our actions and activities based as much as possible on accurate data -so as not to fail, that caution is understandable.

Still, it can be said that science begins with acknowledging ignorance -and travels toward decreasing ignorance.

(Scientists, however, do sometimes allow very unscientific prejudices and influences to taint the process)

"God" is essentially as far from the "known" as one can get (from the perspective of science) -regardless of whether or not historical firsthand accounts are true -or even if one or a few were to have similar experiences today.

However, the perspective of such a being would be very different. Science is first a reverse-engineer, then an engineer.
"God" would be the engineer of all science could reverse-engineer. God would be the source of all science could learn.
If science had access to such a knowledge base, there would be little left to do in the reverse-engineering department -and much more could be done in the engineering department..

What is called "evolution" has resulted, overall, in life forms which are increasingly complex, which have increased power over their environment, understanding of their environment and ability to change their environment to suit them. If we follow this process to the end of its course, the end-all, be-all would be a being which was invulnerable to its environment, perfectly aware of its environment and perfectly able to manipulate its environment.

Therefore, we cannot reject the possibility of the existence of such a being -even yet future, as a result of the process called "evolution".
We cannot assume that it would be the first instance of such -(nor can we assume that a similar being would necessarily have to come exist by this process -being different in that it did not, which would necessarily be so if the process was initiated by an intelligence.)

"Evolution" however, is something of which science is admittedly ignorant -yet which is increasingly understood.

What is known about evolution cannot be proved false -though some are ignorant of what is known. What is assumed about evolution may yet prove to be false.

Similarly, if the biblical accounts of firsthand dealings with God (more correctly, the Word), angels, etc., are true -and were even happening today -some would still be ignorant of such.

If one or a few met God in person, science would understandably say "Evidence, or it didn't happen".

If one describes God in a certain way, and that description proves to be false -such as God having created everything about 6,000 years ago -and so evolution cannot be true -all that has happened is that the description is then known to be false.

If that is what the bible said to be true of God -WHICH IT DOES NOT -then the God "of the bible" would be known to be false. This still does not prove that no similar being exists or could exist.

The bible actually does not say that all things (that would include "the heaven") were created 6,000 years ago -but that after their initial completion (Job 38 concerning the earth specifically), the earth somehow -and after an unspecified amount of time -became formless and void (Gen 1:2 -check the definition of "was"). Therefore, what follows would be a renewal of the earth -in preparation for man.

It does say that Adam (who came to exist about 6,000 years ago given the genealogies in the bible) was the first "man" by biblical definition -NOT scientific definition.

The bible says very little about what specifically happened in the ETERNITY before Adam -or what happened on the earth during the unspecified amount of time from its initial completion to its becoming formless and void -waste and ruin. It does, however, indicate that angles already existed at the initial completion of the earth -at which they jumped for joy -and that a third had already rebelled and attempted a coup against God's throne -ascending from beneath the heights of the clouds -and were subdued before the events in Eden. War and neglect tend to wreck things, perhaps they were the cause of the waste and ruin -it doesn't say for certain.

Anyway -back to the point.

The God of the bible is described as a being which purposefully hides himself and certain knowledge for various reasons -so it's of little use trying to prove to "science" that God exists.
It also says he will reveal himself to all in time -so he's not worried about the fact that science cannot prove he exists, or that it is not presently interested in doing so.
He is, however, interested in how people deal with those things they do know -and which are apparent to all -those things which are obviously right and wrong. He will judge them according to "their works".
If he reveals certain things to certain people -they are then responsible for those things.

All that the engineer has kept from us -and has not revealed -could be accurately described as "the tree of life".

Subduing the rebellious angels and keeping man from the tree of life are necessary limitations of power and knowledge.
Our progress has been slowed while we learn important spiritual lessons -without which we would only cause greater ruin and misery.
We have to travel to a point where it is possible for us to KNOW both good and evil -but to only DO GOOD -which would not then have been the case.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This was the reason for the confusing of speech at Babel -to postpone the inevitable.

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

When we have been perfected spiritually, we can then be trusted with great power and knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not think evolution is "about the individual" but rather that evolution is a cold, passive, aimless process that doesn't care about individuals or species. The only way in which evolution is "about the individual" is the natural selection process which eliminates less evolutionary fit traits by the deaths of individuals who possess those traits. Bunyip claims evolution is "about the species" yet he would be hard pressed to name a physical characteristic of a being (something we all agree is shaped by evolution) which sacrifices individual evolutionary fitness for the sake of the species, because this is a special case scenario made up specifically as an excuse why evolution COULD be the cause of morality. For no other trait conferred by evolution (other than his alleged evolution-based morality) does all this "about the species" business need even be considered.

I say evolution is about more than just the individual & the species. It's also about other critters who evolve along with the species in question. Survival of the fittest individual is merely an aspect of evolution.

 

[Ouroboros]

I say evolution is about more than just the individual & the species. It's also about other critters who evolve along with the species in question. Survival of the fittest individual is merely an aspect of evolution.

Exactly. Evolution is really a very complex process. There are multiple things happening at the same time coming together at given points. It's not just a single gene here or there mutating and somehow luckily has some benefits.

For instance, epigenetics is a new field of study. A person's birth might affect a person's future obesity. C-sec or natural gives different results. Why? That's another discussion. But genes, environment, experience, all of it affects what we are.

Also, the phrase "survival of the fittest" lose a lot in the translation. What is fitness, and what does it mean by surviving? It's not surviving but successful reproduction. Fitness can be to have a certain non-lethal disease that saves you from another lethal disease (survival of the sickest).

Then we have jumping genes, and genes that are transferred from virus, and so on.

--edit--

Oh, and of course cultural and social evolution. Society changes and evolves as well. Knowledge, science, etc too. Even religion and theology has changed. I heard from my math son that even math is going through a big overhaul right now. Don't remember what it was though. I think it had something to do with the axiom of choice... not even sure if I understand what that is...

 

[Prophet]

Well, my analogy is pretty much a badly beaten dead horse now. But for your edification, here's some info about the concept that phenomena will exist as the result of a stochastic system's existence.
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I opine that morality (like economics, cities, etc) is an emergent property of populations of intelligent beings.

My counter opinion is that moral laws are real on the level of physical laws which govern the universe and our differing and changing opinions on morality which you use as your basis for believing that morality is relative can be as fully attributed to our collective ignorance as our differing and changing opinions on science. You bring up past and current backwards cultures with less intelligent ideas on morality as if that is support for your ideas. I could just as easily point out that past cultures believed the world was flat and if they went far enough, they'd fall off. By your own flawed reasoning, this should make the physical realm relative as well.

But they believe that their absolutely true morality, handed to them by their theology, is superior. You & I agree that they shouldn't oppress others. Do you believe that your morality on this issue is absolutely true? What is the source of this morality? For me, it's personal preference...not truth.

For me, it is a deep belief that all beings are connected and it is constantly reinforced by seeing how judging others and seeing them as lesser and apart from myself psychologically forces me to disown and refuse to see how the intentions I hate in others are mirrored in my own life, amongst other things.

What you call "progress", I see as simply what happens. But what of other 'progress', eg, increasing government surveillance of us, increasing socialism, increasing regulation of our lives, our population expanding while crowding out the natural environment? Are these things as universally true as the moral progress you favor?

Uhm.... maybe socialism might comprise social progress as it may result in beings treating others like they themselves would like to be treated. Women's suffrage would comprise moral progress as it would have men treat women with respect as other beings rather than as property. The Civil Rights movement of the 60s comprised moral progress as it would have whites treat minorities with respect rather than as vermin. But how can government surveillance fit into this context beyond the fact that it happens? Government surveillance is clearly a different brand of progress than moral.

No, I've been diligent about addressing your claims. Perhaps instead of continually claiming shortcomings on my part, you might address the issues, eh?

I've already answered this. Do you ask because you don't believe me or did you not read it?

I feel you have been evasive in answering an inquiry that exposes weakness in your beliefs. You've painted a picture of morality in which individuals have absolutely no choice in the matter what kind of moral being they will be as it is fully determined by genetics and surroundings. In my view, all Nazis who murdered Jews had a conscience and thus knew full well to be disgusted by the barbaric acts ordered of them, giving them both choice and moral responsibility. The problem I see is that I am the only one of us two with philisophical grounds to abhor Nazism, yet we both do indicating that you likely do not adhere to a belief in relative morality in practice but only in words and concept.

Now how have I been evasive? What issues do you see me running away from?

It sounds like your argument is one of necessity, ie, it is so desired that it must be an absolute universal truth. If wishes were pigs, we'd all be awash in bacon.

Please, feel free to highlight exactly how I have used wishful thinking as an argument.

I find it relaxing.

I guess relaxing is a matter of taste. If, you find pushing incongruencies between what you state you believe and what you believe in practice soothing, a mental institution might make a lovely vacation getaway spot for you.

You're erroneously inventing loopy thoughts for me.

I have fully derived these "loopy" thoughts as logically proceeding from the beliefs you profess but do not take seriously enough to practice.

It sounds like you're rejecting the absolutely true morality of your faith, & replacing it with your personal one. Are we really so far apart?

Moral responsibility is something we assign to each other, whether we're moral relativists or universalists. I think the big difference between us not in our commitment to our morality, but our beliefs about its origins. You attribute it to some absolutely true & inerrant universal morality. I attribute it to a result of genetics & culture.

It sounds like you are purposefully trying to misunderstand me here. I was quite clear that persecuting homosexuals, contrary to the church's opinion, was wrong and absolutely contradicted the way we ought to treat others and when I had begun to think for myself I was able to deduce this for myself in spite of being indoctrinated otherwise. It is for this same reason that I believe that Nazis should have known better, should have been able to think for themselves, and thus bear moral responsibility for their heinous acts, and you remain inconsistent.

 

[Prophet]

This is actually a real thing. Psychopaths are often extremely successful because of their ability to take advantage of people and do things many people are not able to do. However this advantage only works when the vast majority of people already have altruistic natures. And even though the non-altruistic individual may thrive it does not mean that he will increase in proportion in the community.

It is very easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper aggression level on a given species. Beings of the species who are not aggressive enough won't proactively care for themselves and their situations and thus will lose evolutionary fitness. Beings who are too aggressive won't be able to coexist with others, also costing themselves evolutionary fitness. It makes full sense that the normal level of aggression for highly social species would be lower than the normal level of aggression for comparatively antisocial species, as a high aggression level in a member of a highly social species such as us would be absolutely devastating to evolutionary fitness, whereas a high aggression level in a member of an antisocial species such as crocodiles would not be nearly as problematic.

It is not easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper self-sacrifice level. Beings of a species who are not highly self-sacrificing do not suffer for it in loss of evolutionary fitness. Beings who are highly self-sacrificing will OFTEN willingly suffer losses in evolutionary fitness, in extraordinary circumstances losing even their lives. The cowards live to cower another day while the hero William Wallace gets tortured on the rack. Evolution favors the survivor. Evolution favors the immoral. Evolution favors the coward. If evolution is creating the morality we should follow, we should admire the coward who runs for his life. Since it doesn't, we mostly uniformly admire the self-sacrificing hero.

 

[Prophet]

Sorry, but I don't get you. I'm leaving this discussion with you because I can tell there's no gain on either side to be made here.

You believe that evolution considers the well-being of a group or species in promoting traits that will help the group and that is how it gives rise to morality despite the individual evolutionary fitness loss suffered by those who self-sacrifice. Contrastingly, I side with Darwin. I believe that evolution considers nothing, allows less evolutionary fit traits to die off over the eons by natural selection.

Now we know for a fact that evolution influences physical characteristics. It should stand to reason that were your model of evolution true, there should be physical characteristics or behaviors outside of morality of some species, which, like self-sacrifice, would hurt the individual but help the species. When I asked for you to point some of these out, you gave about five examples of non-human beings acting morally such as a bird mother feeding her young and ants who self-sacrifice in dire combat situations to help their friends, qualifying your answer by saying that they aren't human so they don't count as moral--pathetic. Whatever. Frankly, you are being unreasonable and obstinate in your forcible misunderstandings of extremely simple arguments.

 

[Ouroboros]

You believe that evolution considers the well-being of a group or species in promoting traits that will help the group and that is how it gives rise to morality despite the individual evolutionary fitness loss suffered by those who self-sacrifice. Contrastingly, I side with Darwin. I believe that evolution considers nothing, allows less evolutionary fit traits to die off over the eons by natural selection.

Of course the well-being of a group or species promotes certain traits. That's the idea behind Darwin's natural selection. Some individual traits are beneficial for the groups survival.

Now we know for a fact that evolution influences physical characteristics. It should stand to reason that were your model of evolution true, there should be physical characteristics or behaviors outside of morality of some species, which, like self-sacrifice, would hurt the individual but help the species.

But anything that suggests hurting the individual and helping the species you name "morality" and then dismiss, so you've put an impossible dilemma. It can't be solved since you're asking for a square circle.

When I asked for you to point some of these out, you gave about five examples of non-human beings acting morally such as a bird mother feeding her young and ants who self-sacrifice in dire combat situations to help their friends, qualifying your answer by saying that they aren't human so they don't count as moral--pathetic.

See? Anything that fits doesn't fit because you give it a label that you demand can't be there. It's an impossible puzzle because you demand that the pieces to fit shouldn't fit.

Whatever. Frankly, you are being unreasonable and obstinate in your forcible misunderstandings of extremely simple arguments.

I think you're being intentional obtuse. Why? I don't know.

I side with modern evolutionary theory, not Darwin. Darwin only had one part to the whole theory, and there's happened a lot since his days. Modern theory isn't pure darwinism anymore. Today, it's not uncommon to talk about bio-psycho-social concepts and how they evolve. Biology affects psychology, which in turn influence social structure, and then there's a feedback through them all where psychology and social influence affects biology. The whole concept is rather more complex than you seem to suggest.

 

[Prophet]

Of course the well-being of a group or species promotes certain traits. That's the idea behind Darwin's natural selection. Some individual traits are beneficial for the groups survival.

I was hopeful that you were earnest and we were done here... oh well. I can tell you fairly matter-of-factly that the well-being of a group has never promoted a certain trait and neither has evolution despite your unevidenced insistences to the contrary.

I wonder: Where is your trait-promoting, well-being concerned evolution in the case of species who have gone extinct? Pandas won't mate to save their entire species, and yet there is no doubt that evolution has had its say in setting their sex drive. If evolution can make us more moral as a group through magical means outside of natural selection in order to help us as a group, certainly it can magically make a few pandas horny to save their species!

But anything that suggests hurting the individual and helping the species you name "morality" and then dismiss, so you've put an impossible dilemma. It can't be solved since you're asking for a square circle.

I don't know if it was with you but I jokingly suggested looking for an instance of animals who have evolved smaller mouths to promote less hogging of food and more sharing fitting morality's template as individually disadvantageous, but good for the group. I was told that this was silly and I agreed that it was just as silly as the idea that self-sacrifice evolved.

See? Anything that fits doesn't fit because you give it a label that you demand can't be there. It's an impossible puzzle because you demand that the pieces to fit shouldn't fit.

I asked for amoral traits or behaviors and you couldn't help but name a bunch of behaviors which, if performed by a human, would EPITOMIZE morality. Again, this is pathetic. You can't name even ONE amoral trait which damages individual evolutionary fitness and but helps the species because they don't exist and your "complex" "modern" evolutionary theory was developed exclusively to explain away altruism.

I think you're being intentional obtuse. Why? I don't know.

I side with modern evolutionary theory, not Darwin. Darwin only had one part to the whole theory, and there's happened a lot since his days. Modern theory isn't pure darwinism anymore. Today, it's not uncommon to talk about bio-psycho-social concepts and how they evolve. Biology affects psychology, which in turn influence social structure, and then there's a feedback through them all where psychology and social influence affects biology. The whole concept is rather more complex than you seem to suggest.

Yes, you've told me repeatedly how "complex" the process really is in lieu of explaining the exact mechanic by which it operates. It remains that I can explain step by step how finches on the Galapagos Islands got different beak shapes in language so simple a five-year-old could understand. It is likewise simple with explaining how evolution gave rise to every other trait outside of morality, including many behavioral traits like aggressiveness. It is when evolution must explain morality that the process involves "bio-psycho-social concepts" that are apparently so "complex" they can't be rationally explained to a critical adult.