Athiesm and disproving God

[Prophet]

The above is wrong. First off altruism doesn't mean "killing yourself".

First off, I wonder why you put the phrase "killing yourself" in quotes as if to imply that your dumbed-down version of what I said is what I said in actuality. I'd love to see you quote me saying anything like "altruism means killing yourself". What I did say was quite different (to me at least):

Beings who are highly self-sacrificing will OFTEN willingly suffer losses in evolutionary fitness, in extraordinary circumstances losing even their lives.

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.

In terms of evolutionary fitness, beings who exhibit the altruism trait will willingly trade losses in their personal evolutionary fitness for gains in evolutionary fitness of their family, peers, and even strangers. True, altruism could happen in non-dire circumstances such as sharing food in times of plenty. Nobody loses evolutionary fitness here, and certainly the one shared with gains. Evolution, which already tumbles along at a glacial pace, is even further slowed in good times of plenty. Since everyone is surviving times of plenty, accordingly these times are not when the evolutionary fitness of weak traits such as courage or pity are exposed. Conversely, in times of hunger, poverty, and war the exact opposite is true. During times of hunger and poverty, the selfish hoarder is the most fit. During times of war, the coward is the most fit.

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.

The benefits of team work in a team sport or activity is obvious, but the exact mechanics by which failing to score more goals than the other team can translate to survival are specious at best. The competition you're really looking for here to mirror the way evolution works is "The Hunger Games".

Short of a high stakes game that actually simulates evolution by putting lives on the line, we might look at a competition that falls just short of this by putting livelihoods one the line. While children may still play for love of the game, it is a long, proud tradition amongst professional athletes such as Kobe Bryant to put personal concerns such as who should receive credit for the win above the win, itself. With credit for wins comes money and reputation. Rich and famous beyond what anyone could wish for and near the end of his career, Kobe Bryant is only just starting to pay for his selfishness now, as many of his most talented peers have become wise to his game of hoarding all the credit and money.

 

[Bunyip]

Prophet

You may wsh to read the OP. Your comments about evolution do not relate to it in any way.

 

[Prophet]

Prophet

You may wsh to read the OP. Your comments about evolution do not relate to it in any way.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contents of the OP are immaterial for judging whether my comments about evolution are applicable to the debates I am having. I never responded to the OP, nor claimed to. My comments about evolution and everything in general are meant to relate to the comments I place in quotations which I AM responding to.

 

[Midnight Rain]

First off, I wonder why you put the phrase "killing yourself" in quotes as if to imply that your dumbed-down version of what I said is what I said in actuality. I'd love to see you quote me saying anything like "altruism means killing yourself". What I did say was quite different (to me at least):

I use the term because your equating loss of fitness in the personal level with that of the fitness of the population which would be incorrect.

In terms of evolutionary fitness, beings who exhibit the altruism trait will willingly trade losses in their personal evolutionary fitness for gains in evolutionary fitness of their family, peers, and even strangers. True, altruism could happen in non-dire circumstances such as sharing food in times of plenty. Nobody loses evolutionary fitness here, and certainly the one shared with gains. Evolution, which already tumbles along at a glacial pace, is even further slowed in good times of plenty. Since everyone is surviving times of plenty, accordingly these times are not when the evolutionary fitness of weak traits such as courage or pity are exposed. Conversely, in times of hunger, poverty, and war the exact opposite is true. During times of hunger and poverty, the selfish hoarder is the most fit. During times of war, the coward is the most fit.

Evolution doesn't have to be slowed by prosperity. In fact it can mean the opposite. The larger the population the greater the chance for beneficial mutations to occur. When times get harder those who have stuck together to survive live rather than those that flee on their own. If one person is hording food all for themselves during a famine will be reprimanded by the group that identifies the need of the many to be higher than the need of one. Similarly the coward of war will be disgraced. Altruism is gained slowly over time and at no given point in time will there be a majority of individuals who are blind to a single person taking advantage of the society. The social skills required for altruism on the scale we are talking about also has the self regulating function to maintain that social order even with individuals who do not follow it.

This is a key point that has been mentioned that you have yet to respond to.

The benefits of team work in a team sport or activity is obvious, but the exact mechanics by which failing to score more goals than the other team can translate to survival are specious at best. The competition you're really looking for here to mirror the way evolution works is "The Hunger Games".

Short of a high stakes game that actually simulates evolution by putting lives on the line, we might look at a competition that falls just short of this by putting livelihoods one the line. While children may still play for love of the game, it is a long, proud tradition amongst professional athletes such as Kobe Bryant to put personal concerns such as who should receive credit for the win above the win, itself. With credit for wins comes money and reputation. Rich and famous beyond what anyone could wish for and near the end of his career, Kobe Bryant is only just starting to pay for his selfishness now, as many of his most talented peers have become wise to his game of hoarding all the credit and money.

The hunger games is a really good example. They formed groups in order to be more effective. Those that did not ban together died rather quickly. Thus showcasing the perfect example of why altruism can occur naturally as it fulfills advantages.

 

[Bunyip]

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contents of the OP are immaterial for judging whether my comments about evolution are applicable to the debates I am having. I never responded to the OP, nor claimed to. My comments about evolution and everything in general are meant to relate to the comments I place in quotations which I AM responding to.

They are off topic. Start a thread if you want to debate.

Stick to the OP.

 

[Prophet]

I use the term because your equating loss of fitness in the personal level with that of the fitness of the population which would be incorrect.

I believe you have misunderstood me and I'm not quite sure what steps you've taken to do so. I readily acknowledge that the sacrifice of fitness on an individual level can lead to a net increase in fitness across a group or species. If you would insist that you have not understood me and rather that I have unwittingly submitted an argument which equates individual loss of fitness with group fitness, I would challenge you to present the quote, but since I believe nothing like that, I would find it amazing if I typed anything like that on this entire website ever.

Evolution doesn't have to be slowed by prosperity. In fact it can mean the opposite. The larger the population the greater the chance for beneficial mutations to occur. When times get harder those who have stuck together to survive live rather than those that flee on their own.

In an argument about how evolution could possibly give rise to morality using the human experience as a template, I feel it is far more useful and applicable to talk about bad times than good. I feel this because I presume that humans were not first born in the Garden of Eden, but rather outside of civilization and prosperity into the wild where survival is a zero-sum, him-or-me scenario and it is under these harsh evolutionary conditions that human morality (as well as animal morality, bird morality, insect morality) came to a condition of preponderance.

If one person is hording food all for themselves during a famine will be reprimanded by the group that identifies the need of the many to be higher than the need of one. Similarly the coward of war will be disgraced. Altruism is gained slowly over time and at no given point in time will there be a majority of individuals who are blind to a single person taking advantage of the society. The social skills required for altruism on the scale we are talking about also has the self regulating function to maintain that social order even with individuals who do not follow it.

This is a key point that has been mentioned that you have yet to respond to.

But ARE people who act selfishly always identified and reprimanded by society? The very stupid ones, sure, (what's up Adrian Peterson? ) but add a bit of intelligence to immoral beings and beings who are every bit as selfish as the food hoarder but are aware of how a revelation of their immorality will cost them will become incredibly resourceful at hiding their dirty laundry while upholding a good reputation. This type of being who puts up a facade of goodness while retaining selfish motives behind it is very commonly referred to as a "hypocrite".

The hunger games is a really good example. They formed groups in order to be more effective. Those that did not ban together died rather quickly. Thus showcasing the perfect example of why altruism can occur naturally as it fulfills advantages.

Yes, we all saw the movie version. Now think of what would happen during a REAL hunger games. Yes, groups would band together to survive the initial culling, but who would really win? Someone altruistic? Or someone who can feign altruism and stab their peers in the back the moment it becomes advantageous?

 

[McBell]

Or someone who can feign altruism and stab their peers in the back the moment it becomes advantageous?

ouch.
You just showed yourself that altruism is beneficial....

 

[Prophet]

ouch.
You just showed yourself that altruism is beneficial....

I just showed that feigning altruism is beneficial. And just now I showed that reading comprehension is beneficial.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So far as we have any evidence, nature. Until there is evidence for a code writer, there's no reason to assume one exists.

and vice versa, after all- creative intelligence is the only means by which we can verify purely original functional code being originated.
The same happening by chance- we just don't know, not impossible I suppose, but it's an extraordinary assumption, and another atheism of the gaps argument

 

[Midnight Rain]

In an argument about how evolution could possibly give rise to morality using the human experience as a template, I feel it is far more useful and applicable to talk about bad times than good. I feel this because I presume that humans were not first born in the Garden of Eden, but rather outside of civilization and prosperity into the wild where survival is a zero-sum, him-or-me scenario and it is under these harsh evolutionary conditions that human morality (as well as animal morality, bird morality, insect morality) came to a condition of preponderance.

We can look at the bad times but unfortunately that doesn't help your argument.

But ARE people who act selfishly always identified and reprimanded by society? The very stupid ones, sure, (what's up Adrian Peterson? ) but add a bit of intelligence to immoral beings and beings who are every bit as selfish as the food hoarder but are aware of how a revelation of their immorality will cost them will become incredibly resourceful at hiding their dirty laundry while upholding a good reputation. This type of being who puts up a facade of goodness while retaining selfish motives behind it is very commonly referred to as a "hypocrite".

You are right. There are several selfish people in the world. However this isn't an argument against the evolution of morality by natural means.

Yes, we all saw the movie version. Now think of what would happen during a REAL hunger games. Yes, groups would band together to survive the initial culling, but who would really win? Someone altruistic? Or someone who can feign altruism and stab their peers in the back the moment it becomes advantageous?

Over hundreds of thousands of generations? The ones who are actually altruistic. In any specific event perhaps the psychopath that can feign altruism but they would only feign it to meet an end. Over the course of generations this wouldn't pan out. Their own children would not benefit from their selfishness. If they stab their own children in the back then that would stop their genetic line. However an altruistic parent would do whatever was necessary to see the survival of their children and perhaps the children of others as well.

 

[Etritonakin]

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

Perhaps it should not be -but it can be -and individuals can certainly be evolutionists -though, again -perhaps should not be.

Belief in God CAN have to do with accepting evolution -and vice-versa -if one believes them to be mutually exclusive based on certain points.

Evolutionist is in the dictionary, but I see what you are saying.

 

[McBell]

I just showed that feigning altruism is beneficial. And just now I showed that reading comprehension is beneficial.

wow.
You really are a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
You really need to work on your insults though.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Educated -perhaps. Intelligent -probably not (especially since education can affect IQ).
That percentage likely also has to do with those who believe themselves to be more intelligent than the religious -or see religion as a sign of lesser intelligence -not accepting the religious into their club. This sort of thinking is not limited to science/religion, and associated actions against those seen as less fit are filling the ranks of most institutions -private, public, official -with people who believe themselves to be superior -but who have little common sense, are not likely to challenge accepted ideas (as individuals), likely to accept popular ideas, aren't really good at their jobs, and will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. It has actually caused great vulnerability, instability and outright weakness.

(Think "Smartest Guys in the Room")

I was reminded of these verses.....

Eze 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
......
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee
.......
Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:......

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Cephus]

and vice versa, after all- creative intelligence is the only means by which we can verify purely original functional code being originated.
The same happening by chance- we just don't know, not impossible I suppose, but it's an extraordinary assumption, and another atheism of the gaps argument

If you're going to call DNA code, we know for certain that DNA exists, there's no reason to doubt that. You're just asserting that there is some magic man in the sky who did it all, but what you're really doing is engaging in the argument from ignorance. You don't understand, or don't like, what the evidence shows so you simply make up another explanation that is emotionally satisfying to you and pretend that it's on par with the actual evidence.

It isn't. All the faith in the world won't make it so.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're just asserting that there is some magic lotto machine in the sky which did it all, but what you're really doing is engaging in the argument from ignorance. You don't understand, or don't like, what the evidence shows so you simply make up another explanation that is emotionally satisfying to you and pretend that it's on par with the actual evidence.

It isn't. All the faith in the world won't make it so.

The argument from ignorance is a wash, we don't know how it originated, other than that there was a specific creation event, a seed, a 'self extracting archive' of information, including the information needed to create a consciousness for this creation to ponder itself...

all by complete chance? it's possible, and that's certainly comforting in lacking any ultimate purpose/meaning- as opposed to the more uncomfortable implications of 'why?'- , as is the waves washing 'help' up on the deserted beach. It's tempting to write that off as a fluke- relieving one of any obligation

which side is more emotional? well which of us is projecting emotions on the other? that's usually a clue!

 

[Bunyip]

By Bunyip's definition, I am not the only one here off topic.

Bunyip disagreed with things I said, engaged me, was disappointed with his results and subsequently levied this weak attack implying that everything I say must be irrelevant because it is at least a step removed from the OP. Bunyip regularly dispenses advice he cannot be bothered with following himself with an attitude that epitomizes the word "hypocrite".

You're getting pretty paranoid there buddy.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps it should not be -but it can be -and individuals can certainly be evolutionists -though, again -perhaps should not be.

No, evolution is not an ideology - 'evolutionist' is just a ridiculous and deceptive term.

Belief in God CAN have to do with accepting evolution -and vice-versa -if one believes them to be mutually exclusive based on certain points.

Evolutionist is in the dictionary, but I see what you are saying.

So is 'Fairy'.

 

[Bunyip]

The argument from ignorance is a wash, we don't know how it originated, other than that there was a specific creation event, a seed, a 'self extracting archive' of information, including the information needed to create a consciousness for this creation to ponder itself...

all by complete chance? it's possible, and that's certainly comforting in lacking any ultimate purpose/meaning- as opposed to the more uncomfortable implications of 'why?'- , as is the waves washing 'help' up on the deserted beach. It's tempting to write that off as a fluke- relieving one of any obligation

which side is more emotional? well which of us is projecting emotions on the other? that's usually a clue!

That doesn't make sense, you appear to be confusing atheism for cosmology.
What has purpose and meaning got to do withmwhether a person believes in your god or not?

 

[McBell]

The argument from ignorance is a wash, we don't know how it originated, other than that there was a specific creation event, a seed, a 'self extracting archive' of information, including the information needed to create a consciousness for this creation to ponder itself...

Make up your mind.
Either we do or do not know.

And if you are going to stick with your whole "creation event" bias, please support your bold empty claim.

all by complete chance?

This is your strawman, not mine.

it's possible, and that's certainly comforting in lacking any ultimate purpose/meaning- as opposed to the more uncomfortable implications of 'why?'- , as is the waves washing 'help' up on the deserted beach. It's tempting to write that off as a fluke- relieving one of any obligation

Argument from incrudelity

which side is more emotional?

Yours

well which of us is projecting emotions on the other?

You

that's usually a clue!

I agree.
To bad you are going to deny it.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, evolution is not an ideology - 'evolutionist' is just a ridiculous and deceptive term.

So is 'Fairy'.

Exactly.