Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[SkepticThinker]

I think rape is always wrong because I cannot conceive of an instance where it is right.

Okay, so your opinion about rape is just about as objective as anybody else's. You simply stamp your opinion on the matter onto your God and then declare it to be an objective moral truth. That doesn't make it one though.

If you raped someone to save ten other people, you would still say, "Sorry I have to hurt you to effect salvation for others!"

If you have to rape someone to save ten other people, then the action of rape, in that particular case, would/could be morally justified. That would make it a morally correct action.

Please pick one:

1. rape is wrong always, an objective moral fact
2. rape is wrong always, a metaphysical, eternal truth

I choose neither of your heavily loaded assertions. You've just demonstrated above that rape could sometimes be right, depending on the situation.

Skeptics hate 1) and 2) as choices because they imply a moral Creator.

Please don't try telling me what I like or don't like. I think I've sufficiently explained how I come to moral decisions and I don't think any Creator is necessary to make such decisions. And in fact, as I said before, I think the inclusion of a Creator whose orders must be followed regardless of our personal feelings about them, results in human beings acting amorally, given that they're just following orders and not actually acting as a moral agent. And it's not moral relativism I've been talking about here, rather it's situational ethics.

But, the problem here is that you're not explaining how either of your options necessitate any kind of "moral Creator." You're just saying so, but you have yet to explain how you got there. Even if something can be determined to be an "objective moral fact" (though I'm not quite sure how you could demonstrate that, and haven't done so thus far), there's no reason that a "moral Creator" must be associated with it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

While you were raping the person, you would say, being a decent person, "I apologize for what's going to happen, it's going to save 1,000 people, but I have to do something wrong to make this happen."

Rape is always wrong. Why do skeptics hate moral absolutes? Oh--I know why.

Because you can't demonstrate that they exist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A lovely example is found in the many Christians who after the Holocaust and gulags in the last century, embraced and forgave their tormentors and won many of them to Christ. Pastor Wurmbrand told the story of the Nazi in his home, ending with, "The reason my wife pled a headache and went upstairs is you killed her brother. If you step upstairs with me, she will embrace you and love you..."

I don't see any value in leading enemies to Christ. Nor in loving Nazis that killed ones brother. You keep implying that these are virtues. I've told you that I see them as errors. This Nazi is much more likely to kill her than most people. What kind of thinking is this? As I said at the outset, loving ones enemy seems like a mistake, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of that notion.

What I asked you is what you do that you would call loving an enemy, and why you consider it a virtue. After all, you were intimating that you were on some morally superior path that atheists couldn't keep up with you on.

I even mentioned that in the past, you evaded the question as you have here again. I think I have my answer. You're talking about nothing, which is what your answer was.

Rape is always wrong, we need no telescope or microscope for this. Pick one:

1. "rape is always wrong" is an objective moral fact
2. "rape is always wrong" is an eternal, metaphysical truth

Skeptics shy away from 1) and 2) because they imply a moral Creator.

No, skeptics shy away from unsubstantiated claims. including that there are objective morals or moral truth, as well as a moral creator. Skeptics need more than just words like "This is true, that is true, and if you don't believe me, you're being dishonest or cowardly." Claims lack the power of persuasion. Faith is apparently enough for some to believe, but only evidenced arguments can persuade the skeptical empiricist.

Every atheist I've asked herein has claimed to sometimes forgive their enemies, never to love them.

Good for them. They show more sense than those that welcome those that have and/or would hurt them into their lives. May the foolishness of that advice would be more apparent to you if we made this enemy someone who killed one of your children. Are you going to welcome that person into your life? Would that be a wise move? Is loving such a person good advice?

And this is why we shouldn't get our moral values out of a book or accept them uncritically on faith. We need to think, not blindly obey.

A little thought tells you that's a bad idea. as is turning your other cheek to the guy who just struck one. These are terrible ideas. Let me give you my advice when somebody punches you in the cheek. Negotiate a peace if you can, and walk away if you can't. If he comes at you a second time before you have left, put your fists upp to defend your face if not strike back. Turning the other cheek is just inviting further violence for no apparent purpose. If you're trying to make a pint by inviting and welcoming more violence and pain, then offer the same cheek - the sore, tender one.

This advice is so obviously bad that virtually everybody re-translates the phrase to mean to forgive. I don't. I expect a god to mean what it says. Jesus uses the word forgive many times elsewhere, but not here.

I could go on. The meek are not blessed. They are cursed. They are frightened little mice unable to assert themselves. So let's go ahead and re-translate that one, too. Let's change it to humble, a completely different meaning. The humble can be courageous. The meek just shrink.

 

[ArtieE]

A lovely example is found in the many Christians who after the Holocaust and gulags in the last century, embraced and forgave their tormentors and won many of them to Christ. Pastor Wurmbrand told the story of the Nazi in his home, ending with, "The reason my wife pled a headache and went upstairs is you killed her brother. If you step upstairs with me, she will embrace you and love you..."

This sounds kinky...

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How do we know any given thing is objectively true. What are your criterion?

The basic objective criteria(morality) that limits adverse social behavior, is that we must do the least amount of harm. We must also create the least amount of suffering. And, we must promote the most amount of physical and mental well-being. These criteria for human behavior are hardwired in all of us by evolution. These are necessary to ensure our species survival through cooperation and accomodation. Those who choose to behave adversely will soon realize that it may not be advantageous to their immediate well-being, or their assimilation into society.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's all in what we choose to believe from so many sources. In my studies, there wasn't much left before 400AD on the Christian scriptures. This was due to Eusebius compiling his work "History of the Church" and all books being burned or destroyed by the reformation (Catholic Church of Rome) by Constantine's Empiric religion. Even the Codex Sinaiticus, which is older than the Codex Vaticanus used by the Catholic Church, can only be dated to around 400AD. Many believe that Sinaiticus was scribed from the actual 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine. If it was, it's just more proof of the Catholic church removing scripture books and adding words to scriptural verses.

Jesus told us not to trust the scribes. So I don't take the Bible word for word literally, especially the Gospel.

So when they tell us they have 22,000 extant fragments that pre-date Constantine, every scholar from every denomination and every atheist NT scholar is lying?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, so your opinion about rape is just about as objective as anybody else's. You simply stamp your opinion on the matter onto your God and then declare it to be an objective moral truth. That doesn't make it one though.



If you have to rape someone to save ten other people, then the action of rape, in that particular case, would/could be morally justified. That would make it a morally correct action.



I choose neither of your heavily loaded assertions. You've just demonstrated above that rape could sometimes be right, depending on the situation.



Please don't try telling me what I like or don't like. I think I've sufficiently explained how I come to moral decisions and I don't think any Creator is necessary to make such decisions. And in fact, as I said before, I think the inclusion of a Creator whose orders must be followed regardless of our personal feelings about them, results in human beings acting amorally, given that they're just following orders and not actually acting as a moral agent. And it's not moral relativism I've been talking about here, rather it's situational ethics.

But, the problem here is that you're not explaining how either of your options necessitate any kind of "moral Creator." You're just saying so, but you have yet to explain how you got there. Even if something can be determined to be an "objective moral fact" (though I'm not quite sure how you could demonstrate that, and haven't done so thus far), there's no reason that a "moral Creator" must be associated with it.

If you have to rape someone to save others, you would say, "I'm so sorry I have to do this wrong thing to you for the greater good," so rape is still morally wrong.

I've tried to let you out here, multiple times, but you are insistent, so since it is not sometimes true that all morals are subjective, in your opinion, you have an absolute moral truth, that all morals are subjective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't see any value in leading enemies to Christ. Nor in loving Nazis that killed ones brother. You keep implying that these are virtues. I've told you that I see them as errors. This Nazi is much more likely to kill her than most people. What kind of thinking is this? As I said at the outset, loving ones enemy seems like a mistake, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of that notion.

What I asked you is what you do that you would call loving an enemy, and why you consider it a virtue. After all, you were intimating that you were on some morally superior path that atheists couldn't keep up with you on.

I even mentioned that in the past, you evaded the question as you have here again. I think I have my answer. You're talking about nothing, which is what your answer was.



No, skeptics shy away from unsubstantiated claims. including that there are objective morals or moral truth, as well as a moral creator. Skeptics need more than just words like "This is true, that is true, and if you don't believe me, you're being dishonest or cowardly." Claims lack the power of persuasion. Faith is apparently enough for some to believe, but only evidenced arguments can persuade the skeptical empiricist.



Good for them. They show more sense than those that welcome those that have and/or would hurt them into their lives. May the foolishness of that advice would be more apparent to you if we made this enemy someone who killed one of your children. Are you going to welcome that person into your life? Would that be a wise move? Is loving such a person good advice?

And this is why we shouldn't get our moral values out of a book or accept them uncritically on faith. We need to think, not blindly obey.

A little thought tells you that's a bad idea. as is turning your other cheek to the guy who just struck one. These are terrible ideas. Let me give you my advice when somebody punches you in the cheek. Negotiate a peace if you can, and walk away if you can't. If he comes at you a second time before you have left, put your fists upp to defend your face if not strike back. Turning the other cheek is just inviting further violence for no apparent purpose. If you're trying to make a pint by inviting and welcoming more violence and pain, then offer the same cheek - the sore, tender one.

This advice is so obviously bad that virtually everybody re-translates the phrase to mean to forgive. I don't. I expect a god to mean what it says. Jesus uses the word forgive many times elsewhere, but not here.

I could go on. The meek are not blessed. They are cursed. They are frightened little mice unable to assert themselves. So let's go ahead and re-translate that one, too. Let's change it to humble, a completely different meaning. The humble can be courageous. The meek just shrink.

My love for enemies includes never rising to their level, trying to avoid even the appearance of passive-aggressive responses, when atheists (not you) constantly curse me, say I lie, etc. etc.

As for the issue of morals, I tried hard to let you off the hook, but you are insistent. You have a moral absolute that all moral codes are subjective.

 

[Phantasman]

So when they tell us they have 22,000 extant fragments that pre-date Constantine, every scholar from every denomination and every atheist NT scholar is lying?

Who's "they"? If those fragments exist, who's hiding them? Show me where I can see and learn them also.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The basic objective criteria(morality) that limits adverse social behavior, is that we must do the least amount of harm. We must also create the least amount of suffering. And, we must promote the most amount of physical and mental well-being. These criteria for human behavior are hardwired in all of us by evolution. These are necessary to ensure our species survival through cooperation and accomodation. Those who choose to behave adversely will soon realize that it may not be advantageous to their immediate well-being, or their assimilation into society.

So your morality is "the ends justifies the means". So you would rape or kill if there were no legal consequences? Of course not, because you have a morality in your soul.

 

[Phantasman]

My love for enemies includes never rising to their level, trying to avoid even the appearance of passive-aggressive responses, when atheists (not you) constantly curse me, say I lie, etc. etc.

As for the issue of morals, I tried hard to let you off the hook, but you are insistent. You have a moral absolute that all moral codes are subjective.

Enemies are above you that you would "rise"?

 

[Phantasman]

So your morality is "the ends justifies the means". So you would rape or kill if there were no legal consequences? Of course not, because you have a morality in your soul.

The word moral doesn't appear in spiritual works. It is a physical (fleshly) characteristic. To some, it is morally correct to have multiple wives. Morality is subjective to the individual groups defining it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you have to rape someone to save others, you would say, "I'm so sorry I have to do this wrong thing to you for the greater good," so rape is still morally wrong.

You completely ignored what I said and just repeated yourself.

If you are in a situation that calls for raping a person in order to save countless other lives, then in that situation the morally correct thing to do would/could be to rape the person so that those other lives could be spared. The "wrong" thing, to do in this situation, would/could be to allow countless people to lose their lives. So something like rape, which is usually a "wrong" thing to do, becomes the "right" thing to do, in the given situation. That makes it the moral choice.

I've tried to let you out here, multiple times, but you are insistent, so since it is not sometimes true that all morals are subjective, in your opinion, you have an absolute moral truth, that all morals are subjective.

Let me out of what? Why don't you try paying attention to what I'm saying to you?

As I explained before, the basis for my system of morality is subjective in that it is based on human well-being, because that's what morality is really about, when you get down to it. With well-being in mind, in any given situation, there will be right (moral) or wrong (immoral) actions that can be taken in regards to optimizing human well-being. In other words, will be "wrong" ways to optimize human well-being, and there will be "right" ways to optimize human well-being.. That's where the more objective part of it comes in.

I'm just going to drop this here again, because you still haven't addressed it and you just keep deflecting away from it:

Please don't try telling me what I like or don't like. I think I've sufficiently explained how I come to moral decisions and I don't think any Creator is necessary to make such decisions. And in fact, as I said before, I think the inclusion of a Creator whose orders must be followed regardless of our personal feelings about them, results in human beings acting amorally, given that they're just following orders and not actually acting as a moral agent. And it's not moral relativism I've been talking about here, rather it's situational ethics.

But, the problem here is that you're not explaining how either of your options necessitate any kind of "moral Creator." You're just saying so, but you have yet to explain how you got there. Even if something can be determined to be an "objective moral fact" (though I'm not quite sure how you could demonstrate that, and haven't done so thus far), there's no reason that a "moral Creator" must be associated with it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So when they tell us they have 22,000 extant fragments that pre-date Constantine, every scholar from every denomination and every atheist NT scholar is lying?

Take note of the word "fragments" in that sentence.

 

[Naama]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

.....Huh?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I asked you is what you do that you would call loving an enemy, and why you consider it a virtue. After all, you were intimating that you were on some morally superior path that atheists couldn't keep up with you on.

My love for enemies includes never rising to their level, trying to avoid even the appearance of passive-aggressive responses, when atheists (not you) constantly curse me, say I lie, etc. etc.

OK, thanks for an answer.

Is that love to you? Is that what you've been calling love?

I don't see love there, or anything out of the ordinary that a secular humanist or anybody else wouldn't do. I told you that in my opinion, the best that an enemy can hope for is that his target doesn't exact revenge, not love.

These are people, after all, that are defined as those that have hurt you or a loved one, or wants or intends to do so. And disengaging from enemies incorporates what you call loving them - not sinking (I think that's what you meant) to their level, by which I assume that you mean not hurting or trying to hurt them, and there is certainly no passive-aggressive response when there is no interaction whatsoever.

My point here is that you made a claim of moral superiority for Christian because they love their enemies, something you claimed atheists were incapable of. My response was that we mostly don't love our enemies because it's a foolish thing to do and not a virtue as you have been intimating.

Furthermore, my point was that I don't believe that Christians claiming that they love their enemies are actually doing that, either.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So your morality is "the ends justifies the means". So you would rape or kill if there were no legal consequences? Of course not, because you have a morality in your soul.

Are you posting to me? You asked me for the objective criteria to base human morality on. I gave you three. Rape causes much harm and suffering. It does not cause the least amount of harm and suffering. Therefore it is an immoral act. This instinctive behavior is hardwired by evolution, to promote cooperation within our species. Adverse and non cooperative behavior are not conducive to the survival of the species. How long do you think herds and tribes of animals would last if they turned on each other? Not very long. I won't continue, since I'm not sure if your post was meant for me.

 

[ArtieE]

So your morality is "the ends justifies the means". So you would rape or kill if there were no legal consequences? Of course not, because you have a morality in your soul.

Of course not, because hurting people might lead to them hurting me and I don't wanna get hurt... if people in a society went around hurting each other I would end up getting hurt too and I don't wanna get hurt and have my well-being and survival chances reduced...

 

[oldbadger]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). ....................

Oh dear.......
Now........... you think that God PARTICIPATED in creation of our universe.... correct?

In which case, who else took part in, or shared in, or contributed to, all this, with your God?

Are you saying that there is more than just one God?

And don't forget that the first atheists were the Christians, because they refused to believe in the Roman and Greek Gods. Take care about your perceptions of what an atheist is.

 

[Audie]

So your morality is "the ends justifies the means". So you would rape or kill if there were no legal consequences? Of course not, because you have a morality in your soul.

Lets see if you ever apply "end justifies the means".

"God" says, dont steal. Stealing is immoral.

So, if you dont steal some medicine, your mother will die.

What do you do?