Athiesm and disproving God

[Ouroboros]

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.

Well. We are done. But I think know now what it is that you were trying to argue, and perhaps you're not completely wrong, and we even could come to an agreement, but it's probably not a good idea now to continue this. Too much animosity has built up and it'll most likely just hinder any possible understanding on either side. Maybe another time.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

So this is flawed reasoning.....
I observe variation in morality between religions, & cultures, & people.
I observe that physical laws do not vary between religions & cultures & people.
Whooda thunk it?

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.

Okey dokey.

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.

What I see is that we cannot look at what happens, & say it's all positive, thereby concluding it's all heading towards some universal absolutely true morality. Simply put, I see stuff happening...some of it like....some I dislike.

I feel you have been evasive in answering an inquiry that exposes weakness in your beliefs.

You keep saying this, but you're utterly wrong. I've answered fully. What you might see as weakness, ie, disbelief in universally true morality, I see as strength, ie, refusal to believe unverifiable claims are universally true.

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.

The existence of free will is a murky debate which is beyond the scope of this thread. You don't really know whether I exercise free choice any less than you do.

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.

So you don't think my reasons for abhorring Nazis are sufficient, eh? At least I do abhor them, unlike some good Xians (with their 'universally true morality') who supported the regime.

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

Since you asked, I see you remaining unfamiliar with scientific concepts (eg, emergent properties, evolution), & arguing against erroneous inferences. Moreover, I see you as unwilling to acknowledge merit in alternative perspectives, & then resorting to ad hominem arguments (which I've been patient with).

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

By claiming that there is a universal morality without any cogent argument supported by evidence.

I guess relaxing is a matter of taste.

No, it's a state of mind...one free from the stress of having to defend unsupported claims. I'm just giving opinions & perspective...no claims of truth.

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.

Thank heavens that there's no theocracy wherein you might have governmental authority to commit heathens to the loony bin.

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

Methinks you're too quick to leap to ill considered conclusions. Your 'logic' has holes.

It sounds like you are purposefully trying to misunderstand me here.

Nope.

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.

So you say, but fail to demonstrate.
You really ought'a take this stuff less personally. It leads to your failure to find common ground with multiple posters, & taking out your frustration in the form of ad hominem obsession. That's my diagnosis.

 

[Prophet]

So this is flawed reasoning.....
I observe variation in morality between religions, & cultures, & people.
I observe that physical laws do not vary between religions & cultures & people.
Whooda thunk it?

Now let's go over what ACTUALLY happens here:

You observe a variation in beliefs about science between religions, cultures, and people.
You reason in the case of science that changes in beliefs about science can be attributed to our shrinking ignorance of it.
You observe a variation in beliefs about morality between religions, cultures, and people.
You assume in the case of morality that changes in beliefs about morality can be attributed to morality actually changing and never once fairly considering that these changes can, just as in science, be attributed to our shrinking ignorance.

So, yes, this is pretty flawed.

What I see is that we cannot look at what happens, & say it's all positive, thereby concluding it's all heading towards some universal absolutely true morality. Simply put, I see stuff happening...some of it like....some I dislike.

I would love for you to find me saying something to the effect of "everything that's happening in the world is moral progress."

You keep saying this, but you're utterly wrong. I've answered fully. What you might see as weakness, ie, disbelief in universally true morality, I see as strength, ie, refusal to believe unverifiable claims are universally true.

I don't see disbelief in universally true morality as weakness. However, I see claiming to disbelieve in universally true morality while at the same time holding beings in contempt for offending your sense of morality as weakness in the form of inconsistency.

So you don't think my reasons for abhorring Nazis are sufficient, eh? At least I do abhor them, unlike some good Xians (with their 'universally true morality') who supported the regime.

I think your reasons for abhorring Nazism are inconsistent with the philosophies you claim to hold for reasons we've been over.

Since you asked, I see you remaining unfamiliar with scientific concepts (eg, emergent properties, evolution), & arguing against erroneous inferences. Moreover, I see you as unwilling to acknowledge merit in alternative perspectives, & then resorting to ad hominem arguments (which I've been patient with).

Please name just one ad hominem argument I have made in which my argument relies upon my judgments upon your personage and ignores your arguments. Yes, I have attacked you, but hardly on account of your personage, but rather on basis of the conflicting philosophies you push and how easily convinced you are by ideas which you perceive to agree with your own. We're down this road of inquiry merely because I made the mistake of typing the phrase "evolutionary origins of morality" in reference to a study and you INSTANTLY found this unknown study which you've read absolutely NONE of "interesting and compelling". I can hardly be blamed if pointing this out makes you look like an agenda-driven moron.

By claiming that there is a universal morality without any cogent argument supported by evidence.

Feel free to quote me so I can defend myself against whatever argument of mine you have badly mischaracterized.

 

[Revoltingest]

You observe a variation in beliefs about science between religions, cultures, and people.
You reason in the case of science that changes in beliefs about science can be attributed to our shrinking ignorance of it.
You observe a variation in beliefs about morality between religions, cultures, and people.
You assume in the case of morality that changes in beliefs about morality can be attributed to morality actually changing and never once fairly considering that these changes can, just as in science, be attributed to our shrinking ignorance.
So, yes, this is pretty flawed.

There is a fundamental difference between physical laws & morality. The former are testable, & yield the same results for all. The latter is not testable, & the subjectivity varies for all.
Alas, this is becoming too much work for too little result. We've each stated our cases, & I see nothing new to cover.

I have some useful advice for you:
The best discussions here are betwixt folks who are friendly while disagreeing, & take interest in understanding other perspectives. Don't obsess over being right, & 'winning' an argument. This will help you avoid bickering & descending into language like "agenda-driven moron" .

 

[Ouroboros]

I have some useful advice for you:
The best discussions here are betwixt folks who are friendly while disagreeing, & take interest in understanding other perspectives. Don't obsess over being right, & 'winning' an argument. This will help you avoid bickering & descending into language like "agenda-driven moron" .

I think he did say that morality was based on "do to others what you want them do to you", which makes me wonder if he wants people to treat him equally?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think he did say that morality was based on "do to others what you want them do to you", which makes me wonder if he wants people to treat him equally?

I uphold a higher standard, albeit a subjective one.

Oh, I'm such a b****h....someone slap me!

 

[Ouroboros]

I uphold a higher standard, albeit a subjective one.

Oh, I'm such a b****h....someone slap me!

One thing I thought about, the golden rule, "do to others as you want them do to you" is fundamentally a subjective and social based rule. It does create a relative condition to a person's subjective views of what they want to be done to them.

 

[Revoltingest]

One thing I thought about, the golden rule, "do to others as you want them do to you" is fundamentally a subjective and social based rule. It does create a relative condition to a person's subjective views of what they want to be done to them.

Aye!

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

How about meerkats. In meerkat colonies, one meerkat will stand sentry while the rest of the group goes about their business foraging and such. If a predator approaches the meerkat sentry will bark and warn the others in the colony that danger is approaching so that they may run and hide. The sentry is the last to hide and the first to emerge from his hiding place to check if the predator is still around and if it is gone will signal to the other meerkats that it's safe to come out. If it's not gone he could easily be attacked and killed. So the sentry is putting himself in considerable risk and danger for the sake of the safety of the group.

 

[Ouroboros]

Aye!

And there are situations where the golden doesn't work. In a moral dilemma you have the choice between two bad options where you wouldn't want either one happening to you.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

'Evolutionists'? You seem to fail tomrealise that the majority of what you call 'èvolutionists' believe in god. I'm amazed whenver somebody seems to actually believe that 'evolutionism' and faith in god are opposites.

 

[Prophet]

There is a fundamental difference between physical laws & morality. The former are testable, & yield the same results for all. The latter is not testable, & the subjectivity varies for all.
Alas, this is becoming too much work for too little result. We've each stated our cases, & I see nothing new to cover.

The only fundamental difference here is your bias.

I challenged you all to present any trait of a being aside from moral behaviors in which evolution invokes its bio-socio-psycho-mysterious forces to allow the preponderance of a condition which costs evolutionary fitness to individuals and makes Darwin's concept of natural selection outdated. Instead of this, I've been given non-human mothers selflessly caring for and feeding their young, non-human animals selflessly protecting their peers against predators, and insects selflessly giving their lives in combat for their peers, and quite a few other bad misses for amoral traits or behaviors.

The reason why I challenged you all for just one more trait is not that complex. I suspected (rightly, it seems) that the "modern" "complex" model of evolution you all tout so authoritatively as correct was specifically created with the agenda of explaining altruism with evolution.

Authoritatively referencing a model created with such an agenda in mind as proof that said agenda is true is straight up circular reasoning.

I have some useful advice for you:
The best discussions here are betwixt folks who are friendly while disagreeing, & take interest in understanding other perspectives. Don't obsess over being right, & 'winning' an argument. This will help you avoid bickering & descending into language like "agenda-driven moron" .

There are discussion forums on this website presumably for people who wish to congratulate other people for being smart for agreeing with them, but since we are in a debate forum, I venture to do that instead. It is without basis you imply that I take no interest in understanding others' perspectives. Although I am very far from agreeing with anything you have to say, I understand your arguments fully and this "knowing of my enemy" is a key advantage I've pressed in this argument to the point where you felt compelled to complain that I was competing to win. It is a sore loser who takes a whipping and subsequently claims that he wasn't even trying.

You slanderously accused me of making an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is an argument which justifies ignoring what an adversary has to say because of negative feelings about who is saying it. I have done no such thing, but ironically, you are demonstrably guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. What I say gets disregarded by you, not for its content, but its source, by your own admission. In this very post I'm responding to, what you say can be logically boiled down to, "I don't like the way you debate so I'm going to disregard what you debate."

Earlier, when you asked why I believed in real morality, I answered:

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.

See how this morality thing works in action? You falsely accused me of making ad hominem arguments and then you went ahead and made one yourself. You slandered me as a slanderer. How many more hypocritical accusations will I have to effortlessly parry? How much more unsolicited advice will I be given by parties who can't be bothered to practice what they preach?

 

[Revoltingest]

The only fundamental difference here is your bias.

My advice was sincere, & would be useful to heed. Anger is harmful. Equanimity is good for one's health.

 

[Prophet]

My advice was sincere, & would be useful to heed. Anger is harmful. Equanimity is good for one's health.

You say you were being sincere by offering me advice, but I feel I have good reason to doubt the sincerity of any adversary who offers me unsolicited advice, as giving unsolicited advice, in itself even to a friend, is generally regarded as very rude. While you may have well convinced yourself that you have given me this unsolicited advice out of kindness, equanimity, and friendship, I can more accurately read your unsolicited advice as a passive-aggressive insult and will offer you some "friendly" unsolicited advice in return and I "sincerely" hope you do all of these things: Be actually critical about the things you believe and even more critical of the beliefs you'll speak out loud and you won't be so easily trounced in debate. Don't bring knives to gun fights, or half-baked theories you cannot explain the mechanics of to hopelessly attempt to defeat theories that are proven. And save yourself the embarrassment and never, ever attempt to debate me again.

 

[Revoltingest]

You say you were being sincere by offering me advice, but I feel I have good reason to doubt the sincerity of any adversary who offers me unsolicited advice, as giving unsolicited advice, in itself even to a friend, is generally regarded as very rude. While you may have well convinced yourself that you have given me this unsolicited advice out of kindness, equanimity, and friendship, I can more accurately read your unsolicited advice as a passive-aggressive insult and will offer you some "friendly" unsolicited advice in return and I "sincerely" hope you do all of these things: Be actually critical about the things you believe and even more critical of the beliefs you'll speak out loud and you won't be so easily trounced in debate. Don't bring knives to gun fights, or half-baked theories you cannot explain the mechanics of to hopelessly attempt to defeat theories that are proven. And save yourself the embarrassment and never, ever attempt to debate me again.

I don't feel trounced or embarrassed....just surprised by your anger, disappointed that I was unable to maintain a conversation. On unsolicited advice....I offer it when I think one could benefit. You either find merit in it, or you don't. Rude is it? I don't know...I lack social graces.

 

[Etritonakin]

'Evolutionists'? You seem to fail tomrealise that the majority of what you call 'èvolutionists' believe in god. I'm amazed whenver somebody seems to actually believe that 'evolutionism' and faith in god are opposites.

No. I do not fail to realize.
"It is also true that many "evolutionists" have seen no proof of the existence of God" is a true statement, does not refer to an actual percentage or suggest that the percentage of evolutionists who believe in God is less than the percentage of those who don't.

I, personally, believe that both God and evolution exist -so I don't believe they are opposites.

 

[Revoltingest]

I, personally, believe that both God and evolution exist -so I don't believe they are opposites.

Makes perfect sense. I've long thought that the idea of evolution being used to disprove gods is balderdasherie. (It's a word cuz I say so.)

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

The above is wrong. First off altruism doesn't mean "killing yourself". It means being valuable to the community even if it means making sacrifices yourself. Sharing your food for example won't kill you one way or the other. You still get food. Maybe a little less than you would like but now you have become valuable to the others whom you have shared your food with. Now if we have a population of individuals who are able to share food with each other and other resources you have a group that clearly acts for the good of the group rather than themselves. A team of five "normal" individuals can out-preform a dysfunctional group of five "above average" individuals. If you've ever coached a sport team of any kind (especially on the younger levels when they make this discovery) you can see this in play. Imagine if evolution was like a soccer tournament. If you loose you get knocked out. However the catch is that each "team" is roughly equal across the board of each team. The team with great teamwork will beat the team of ball hogs who were each individually better than the individuals of the well organized team.

Self sacrifice can be very useful in nature and can lead to being less fit but in groups almost always makes them "more" fit.

 

[Cephus]

No. I do not fail to realize.
"It is also true that many "evolutionists" have seen no proof of the existence of God" is a true statement, does not refer to an actual percentage or suggest that the percentage of evolutionists who believe in God is less than the percentage of those who don't.

I, personally, believe that both God and evolution exist -so I don't believe they are opposites.

Well, to give an actual percentage, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists and we also know that education and IQ negatively correlate with religiosity. The more educated and intelligent that you are, the less religious that you tend to be.

 

[Bunyip]

No. I do not fail to realize.
"It is also true that many "evolutionists" have seen no proof of the existence of God" is a true statement, does not refer to an actual percentage or suggest that the percentage of evolutionists who believe in God is less than the percentage of those who don't.

I, personally, believe that both God and evolution exist -so I don't believe they are opposites.

Evolution is not an 'ism', there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. Belief in god has nothing to do with accepting evolution.