Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

What, precisely, were you saying just before such actions?

Do you know that there is a concept of 'fighting words' that is often taken to excuse minor cases of violence in a situation where they are directed at another?

For example, I can imagine any number of words that, if spoken in the wrong locations, could easily get a person killed. Not that this would be justified or legal, but you do have to consider context in these things, if nothing else for your own safety.

Lesser examples would probably fall under 'fighting words' exemptions. Are you *sure* you didn't provoke more than simply 'speaking softly'?

Once again, for your own safety (and those around you), you might want to consider how your audience might reasonably respond to your actual words. If you are shouting at people, claiming they are sinners, and condemning their clothes, music, etc, maybe you might want to tone down your sermons.

Stuff like, "I see you've been through some tough, stuff, man, Jesus loves you and if I can lay down my life for you to demonstrate that, I surely would [etc. for five minutes then spat upon or had objects hurled at me]."

Rare for sure, but true. I don't need to do the clothes, rock music (I listed to rock) and all that nonsense--if I want to "condemn the crowd" I can talk about human sexuality and everyone feels the pinch, to be frank.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because I'm a curious person. And because such reactions tend to be very rare and highly unlikely, and there aren't really many potential suspects assuming you truly did nothing offensive - what exactly do you mean you were doing when you say you were preaching love?

Preaching to adults as if they're adults with kindness, emphasizing the love of Jesus, not mentioning condemnation or Hell at all, showing with verbals and nonverbals care and attention...

 

[BilliardsBall]

She made her point. You were claiming that rape was always wrong and that that was an absolute. Absolute means without exception. Then you agreed to an exception. That pretty much defines that the proscription against rape is relative, this is might vary according to context, and therefore not absolute. I'd say that she made her point convincingly.

You frequently write that others labor fending off the notion that there are moral absolutes or objective moral values in order to justify not accepting the existence of God, correct?

It seems to be the other way around. You are doing verbal gymnastics trying in vain to make a case for such things in order make a god necessary, although it has also been explained to you that identifying moral absolutes wouldn't do that anyway.

It's just another god-of-the-gaps argument - finding a job for this god that makes it necessary.

The problem is that God is running out of jobs to do. We don't need Him to keep the cosmos running day to day, and we didn't need him to build the universe or generate the tree of life from the first population of living cells. What's left? The origin of the early universe, the origin of the first life, the origin of consciousness, and the origin of abstractions like moral values and mathematics. These are the remaining gaps.



The consensus here has been that you are a provocative and condescending representative of your religion. You told me recently that you sensed enmity between us, and you were correct - something rare for me. I did feel hostility toward you then (not now, however), and apparently failed to conceal it.

My apologies for that.

You have written many offensive comments about atheists, so you should expect that at least some people will dislike you because of it. Your overall message is that atheists are intellectually inferior (you have the truth, while atheists are lost), emotionally inferior (only a Christian can love an enemy, which you imply is a virtue), spiritually inferior, and morally inferior.

I only bring that up now because it is relevant to how people perceive you evangelizing face-to-face. What we know is that you provoke people - you have made what you call enemies on this thread - and are being spat at and having books knocked out of your hand.

So it's hardly cruel to speculate that you might be the cause or part of the cause of your problems.

Thinking about it, I couldn't perform the rape in that sense, as it remains an absolute. Only callow sinners can rape and they know they are wrong.

Atheists sometimes take potshots from me because they do things like contemplate deeply how rape can be "good" and in what context, all to avoid moral absolutes.

There are universal laws, so what is the problem with moral universal laws?

I hear what you say re: God jobs, but you are describing a fairly deist God there. God saved me bacon just yesterday, actually!

 

[Audie]

So if I use the n-word in a bar, they're striking me without my responding is justified in your eyes?

Do you have any idea how completely irrelevant your response is?
But then, it is so ungrammatical that I really cannot puzzle out what
you are asking. I can say this tho, that "justified" has nothing to do with it.

It is just cause and effect. You call n word, you will get it, and there is
absolutely nobody responsible but yourself.

You think the cops would say oh you poor dear? When they find out
what you did?

You act like the so-innocent victim or all this nastiness you say you get

What you say and how you say it is totally on you, and if you get beat up
for misreading your audience you've only yourself to blame.

I am aware that many nominal Christians feel they are supposed to get martyred if they can swing it, and it will get them lots of brownie points
later on. If that is your game, go for it, but dont whine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I couldn't do it, though, because of God in me, and the 1,000 would die. My failure to "perform" is based on this moral absolute.

Well, that is understandable and who knows what any of us would actually do in such a situation. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about whether it would be the most moral action to take. And you agree that it would be. Which means you have agreed that morals are not absolute, and actually depend on the situation under discussion.

Or put another way, it takes a hard skeptic indeed to spend time conjecturing on when rape is a good thing to avoid even the appearance of eternal moral absolutes.

Ah, but thanks to this little exercise, we have now determined that the eternal absolute morality you claim, doesn't actually exist.

Thought exercises harm no one, and they actually help us hash out the intricacies involved in making moral decisions. As we've seen here.

 

[Audie]

How is it relativistic to say, "Theft for greed is absolutely wrong, theft for starvation is absolutely permissible?"

But of interest, I don't think I could perform the rape, I think the 1,000 people would have to die. I just don't have it in me. Christ is in me.

You seem very evasive for someone who has "Christ" in you.

Lets try this again.

A commandment says, dont steal.
Fine.

Would you steal a weapon from someone who was
out to kill school children?

Would you steal medicine to save your mother's life?

On the latter, the decent thing is to go asap, take responsibility for
the theft, and pay for it plus take any consequences like arrest.

If it came out that you could have easily have saved your mother's life
but refused to do so,
would you be found innocent in the eyes of the law and your fellow
humans?

So, would you steal to save your mother's life?
yes or no

 

[Audie]

I couldn't do it, though, because of God in me, and the 1,000 would die. My failure to "perform" is based on this moral absolute.

Or put another way, it takes a hard skeptic indeed to spend time conjecturing on when rape is a good thing to avoid even the appearance of eternal moral absolutes.

No moral absolute for you about letting a thousand people be
slowly tortured to death, when you could have stopped if if
only you raped a prostitute who was drugged and never even
found out what you had done.

Is that so?

Oh, on the "hard skeptic" nice try at insulting people who think differently and
evidently a lot deeper than you. Nobody but you here is trying to "avoid".

Extraordinarily difficult moral dilemmas come up in life. Some of us find it
worthwhile to think things through as best we can. You seem to be avoiding that
with a rigid one-size-fits-all "morality".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So, does an immoral act become moral because it is justified?

For example, if a sniper has a clean shot of a terrorist about to blow up a classroom of children, is the taking of the life of the terrorist a moral act? Is it justified? Is it what the sniper *should* do?

Let me explain again, to avoid any more insensitive mindless petty snipes. Not all immoral acts can't become moral under certain circumstances. There are many obvious non-lethal immoral actions that can become moral actions. But these actions will cause the least amount of physical harm to one person, without causing the most amount of physical harm to another person. I believe that there are just some actions that will cause the most harm to another, and are just too heinous within themselves(rape, taking a human life, torture, enslavement). These actions can never be, and should never be considered a moral act. They should always be considered immoral. But these actions can become a justifiable immoral acts, depending on the circumstances. Once we become so complacent to allow any heinous or evil act to somehow become morally good, then society is on a very slippery slope indeed. Once we open "Pandora's Box", society can redefine even the most heinous acts as being moral, even under questionable/suspicious circumstances(police killing unarmed suspects, military shooting into crowds of demonstrators, or questionable consent by euthanasia patients, etc.).

I have listed the three criteria that establishes whether an action can be considered as a moral act of not. In your sniper scenario, if there are no other contradictory variables, the sniper should take the shot. But although his action is justified and excusable, it is still not a moral act. I hope this answers your question. Remember, we are not talking about immoral acts such as stealing, dishonesty, lying, cheating, or acts that are legally permissible or legally obligatory. We are talking about acts that, by their very nature, will cause the greatest amount of suffering, harm, and ill-being to another. For these acts there is no compromise. This is not about WHY a person commits the act, it is only about the act itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me explain again, to avoid any more insensitive mindless petty snipes. Not all immoral acts can't become moral under certain circumstances. There are many obvious non-lethal immoral actions that can become moral actions. But these actions will cause the least physical harm to one person, without causing the most physical harm to another person. I believe that there are just some actions that will cause most harm to another, and are just too heinous within themselves(rape, taking a human life, torture, enslavement). These actions can never be, and should never be considered a moral act. They should always be considered immoral. But these actions can become a justifiable immoral acts, depending on the circumstances. Once we become so complacent to allow any heinous or evil act to somehow become morally good, then society is on a very slippery slope indeed. Once we open "Pandora's Box", society can redefine even the most heinous acts as being moral, even under questionable/suspicious circumstances(police killing unarmed suspects, military shooting into crowds of demonstrators, or questionable consent by euthanasia patients, etc.).

I have listed the three criteria that establishes whether an action can be considered as a moral act of not. In your sniper scenario, if there are no other contradictory variables, the sniper should take the shot. But although his action is a justified and excusable, it is still not a moral act. I hope this answers your question. Remember, we are not talking about immoral acts such as stealing, dishonesty, lying, cheating, or acts that are legally permissible or legally obligatory. We are talking about acts that, by their very nature, will cause the greatest amount of suffering, harm, and ill-being to another. For these acts there is no compromise. This is not about WHY a person commits the act, it is only about the act itself.

So, in the situation described, the killing of the terrorist is justified, immoral, but a good? is that correct?

or would it be a bad? Should the sniper feel bad about killing the terrorist in that situation?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Studies at Harvard, Yale and other institutions, demonstrate that toddlers do not come into the world "devoid of character and morality". Nor are they "perfect idiots" https://nypost.com/2013/10/26/do-babies-know-good-from-evil/ . How do you think this is possible? Even a 15 month child can distinguish between what is a "false belief" about reality, and what is a real belief about reality(right and wrong). Babies also have a hardwired(evolved) innate sense of the laws of nature(i.e., gravity), that is called "naïve physics".

Many children believe that the Sun moves about the Earth. The very idea that children have an accurate picture of how physics and nature works is laughable. They don't.

On top of that, you are once again defining morality by what humans think about morality. That is subjective morality. Objective morality would require you to reference something independent of humans.

Eight month old children will in most cases pick the good puppet or the puppet causing harm to another puppet to play with. Not the puppet that is bad or being harmed. Even newborn babies show a preference for their mothers over strangers. Where do you think this behavior comes from? Or, do you think it is a subjective choice, by babies? Even children as young as 4 months old, approve of harming those that harm others. Babies also have a hardwired(evolved) sense of justice, altruism, distrust, and a preference for the familiar. These instinctive evolutionary moral attributes, are objectively hardwired from our inherited genetic materials.These attributes are necessary for our survival, since survival also "depended on knowing the difference between those who are one of us (safe) and those who are other (dangerous)".

Subjective moralities can be hardwired. Being hardwired does not make morality objective.

There are no, "objective criteria independent of humans that are used to determine objective morality". Your question makes no sense, since there are no objective criteria without humans, and no such thing as objective morality(not the moral act).The question is therefore fallacious.

I would say that you clearly don't understand what objective is. Objective means that it is independent of humans. Period. The circumference of the Earth is an objective measure because it is independent of the person making the claim. The circumference of the Earth can be determined independently of all humans. Not so for morality.

If you base morality on what humans think of morality, then it is, by definition, subjective.

We are all born into this world as moral creatures, with objective moral attributes(instincts), controlled and expressed by the inherited genes of our ancestors. Period. These instincts(genes) are objective necessities, not initially learned(subjective) through social norms, or previous experiences. Our sense of morality is only more discerned and refined through our continued interaction with society, and others that are different from ourselves.

Being the products of our genes does not make it objective because it is still dependent on humans.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If the majority thought raping little girls for fun was moral would it be moral? Since what is moral is subjective?

Can you name something moral that is thought to be immoral by almost every human being?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Good q.

I think in part it is because philosophy is in
large measure a completely frivolous passtime.
Who on campus is more tiresome than the
philosophy majors?

Objective morality" is one they can argue
around a late night table with a drip candle
stuck in a wine bottle, forever.

Needless to go into why Christians so often
find themselves in pretzels trying to prove
objective morality.

I think part of the problem is that some people are under the impression that subjective is the same as unimportant or arbitrary. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The subjective needs and wants that humans have are some of the most important things we have. They are also not arbitrary. Nearly every human likes eating ice cream more than excrement, but it is still subjective.

If we could get around the misconception that only objective morality can be important and non-arbitrary then perhaps we could get to the core issues at hand.

 

[Audie]

I think part of the problem is that some people are under the impression that subjective is the same as unimportant or arbitrary. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The subjective needs and wants that humans have are some of the most important things we have. They are also not arbitrary. Nearly every human likes eating ice cream more than excrement, but it is still subjective.

If we could get around the misconception that only objective morality can be important and non-arbitrary then perhaps we could get to the core issues at hand.

I dont know what the philosophers come up with. I avoid them.

The Christians have to have objective morality, derived from God.

Consequentemente, it wont matter what you say. God, morality, objective.
Like a three legged stool.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

While I agree for the most part, I don't agree that the acts you listed can never be moral. The circumstances make a huge difference in determining the morality of an action.

While I agree that killing is the ultimate harm you can do to another person, given that it completely erases them from existence, I do think that it can be a moral action in specific instances, as in my example in my last post, where someone I love who is suffering in agony from a terminal illness is begging me to help them die. In that case, even though ultimately I/we are bringing ultimate harm to the person, that harm outweighs the harm of them having to live on in horrible agony and eventually dying a terrible, painful death. Does that fit your criteria?

This example is totally out there, but I think it makes the point (and I just finished watching the Walking Dead ). Let's say a bunch of zombies just grabbed someone you care about (or someone you don't care about, for that matter) and they are eating that person right in front of you. That person is in agony, as the zombies tear off chunks of his flesh. This person is dead no matter what. If you run away and leave him, he will continue to be eaten until he finally dies and turns into a zombie himself, roaming around for the rest of his days attacking and eating many other people. Or you could stay, and shoot him in the head and put him out of his misery. In fact, he's yelling at you to do just that. Is shooting him in the head a moral action to you?

Firstly my sincerest condolences. I have had a similar experience with a very close friend and mentor, who died last year. I have also suffered through my father's illness(Parkinson's Disease), until the merciful end. My condolences again.

My personal opinion is that ending a persons terminal suffering IS a moral act. My problem is that it will create a slippery slope, that may lead to widespread misuse, abuse, and systemic oversight.. As with any injured animal that is dying and/or suffering, the intent and action is to end its already state of suffering. Therefore the intent is NOT to cause the greatest amount of suffering but to end the suffering, especially when there is no hope of recovery. The intent in the sniper scenario was to cause the greatest amount of suffering, where no suffering existed before. The act of killing in this case, is to relieve the suffering(not increase the suffering) that is prolonging death. The intention is also to end that suffering. Therefore, the only thing left to consider is the circumstances. Were there any other means/methods that could alleviate the suffering(medication, alternative medicines, trial studies, etc.)? Was death a certainty due to the illness?

I do concede reluctantly, that under the circumstances of a dying and suffering life, that the act of taking that life in a humane and painless manner, may be an example of a moral act. I say this with some reservations, because the value of all human life is sacrosanct and inalienable. No one has the right to take it away.

Although I love watching(time permitting) The Walking Dead, I think fantasy examples are not appropriate in a morality debate. We both know that zombies don't exist, so my comments would be irrelevant.

 

[ArtieE]

I think I understand the problem we have. I think we have two different moral points of view. You judge a moral action as being either morally right or morally wrong.

No. A moral action is a right action. An immoral action is a wrong action. A moral action can't possibly be a wrong action. That would be a contradiction in terms.

I judge some moral action as being either morally good or morally bad.

A moral action is a good action and can't possibly be morally bad. That would be a contradiction in terms.

According to a teleologist(you), the right-making qualities of the action depend only on its consequences(consequentialism). A deontologists(me) believes that the action can be right/good or wrong/evil in itself, and independent of the consequences. One position is self-serving, self-justifiable, and can lend itself to some very obvious social abuse(state approve murder, segregation laws, religious intolerance, euthanasia, hate crimes, etc.).

To do what's moral is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the well-being and survival of the society and the people in it. Nothing negative about that.

The other position believes that that some actions are intrinsically wrong/evil in themselves. This position is not effected by the ends will justify the means, and does not depend on the current social norms and values of the day.

I have no problems with that position unless it leads to people not killing terrorists before they can set off a bomb in a crowd because you say that act of killing would be intrinsically wrong/evil.

I strongly suspect that three people are not just going to throw themselves overboard voluntarily, no matter how much they know it will benefit the rest. I also suspect that straws will be drawn, or the rest will wait until one member becomes too weak to formally consent or protest. Therefore, killing them to benefit the majority will certainly be non-consensual. The survival instinct is a very powerful instinct. From the victim's perspective throwing them overboard is certainly not a moral action. But who cares, right? As long as it "increases the survival chances for as many as possible", it is still a moral act. Right?

No. The moral act would be to throw themselves overboard voluntarily. Or else draw straws. Or wait for somebody to die. Since there are moral alternatives available throwing somebody overboard against their will would be immoral.

 

[ArtieE]

Can you name something moral that is thought to be immoral by almost every human being?

You first. Then I'll answer your question. "If the majority thought raping little girls for fun was moral would it be moral? Since what is moral is subjective?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How is it relativistic to say, "Theft for greed is absolutely wrong, theft for starvation is absolutely permissible?"

Which is your moral absolute here - theft is OK, or theft is not OK? Pick one, and adhere to it absolutely, that is, without exception.

Then go back to your question.

But of interest, I don't think I could perform the rape, I think the 1,000 people would have to die. I just don't have it in me. Christ is in me.

Yeah, blessed are the meek.

So I preach the gospel and deserve to be attacked?

It's not about deserved. It's about whether you are contributing to the physical hostile reactions you receive.

My experience is that you have to make somebody pretty angry to have them spit at your or slap a book out of your hand. I don't think either have ever happened to me even in my street corner proselytizing days. Why you?

Stuff like, "I see you've been through some tough, stuff, man, Jesus loves you and if I can lay down my life for you to demonstrate that, I surely would [etc. for five minutes then spat upon or had objects hurled at me]."

This went on for five minutes? You weren't spat at immediately?

You were obviously insensitive to the rising anger in your subject. By your account, you went on for five minutes with somebody that obviously wasn't interested and eventually exploded. Part of your job as a salesman of any kind is to take the pulse of the situation and understand how you are being perceived.

Preaching to adults as if they're adults with kindness, emphasizing the love of Jesus, not mentioning condemnation or Hell at all, showing with verbals and nonverbals care and attention...

Do you think you project love here?

And yes, you condemn.

Also, I noticed that your answer to me at post 983 completely ignored the last half of my post to you regarding your apparent lack of insight about the image you project.

If you didn't care about that topic when answering that post, what reason is there to think that you ever consider it? You were told that you come across as condescending at multiple levels, but had no apparent interest in the topic, and seem unaware even after being told.

Perhaps that's part of the issue - dealing with feedback and assorted cues in social situations

One form of insight can be thought of as effectively projecting oneself outside of his body, turning around, and looking back in at oneself to assess how he appears to others. A lot of people don't do this well, and they get negative reactions from others that seem to come out of the blue and catch them off guard, unaware of how they contributed to the problem. Could that be you?

Would you care if any of the things I posted to you were correct? Suppose I was right about your lack of insight about how others perceive you? Would you want to know that? It doesn't seem like it.

But shouldn't you given what matters most to you and how much time you spend at it? This is potentially constructive criticism, but only if you take it as such and consider it impartially and dispassionately.

 

[ArtieE]

The intent in the sniper scenario was to cause the greatest amount of suffering, where no suffering existed before.

No, the intent is to kill the terrorist before he can cause a great amount of suffering. The intent is not to cause a great amount of suffering but to avoid it. Or are you talking about the intent of the terrorist?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The Christians have to have objective morality, derived from God.

I don't see why that would need to be true. First, a morality derived from God could be based on the subjective opinions of God. Second, God could conform the morality he teaches so that it meets up with the subjective morality humans guide their lives by. IOW, God could be teaching humans how to be better humans.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You first. Then I'll answer your question. "If the majority thought raping little girls for fun was moral would it be moral? Since what is moral is subjective?"

That's like asking what if black were white. The majority don't think raping little girls for fun is moral, so that is why it is immoral.

At one time, almost everyone thought that the Sun moved about the Earth. However, the objective fact was that the Earth moves about the Sun. Even if every human believed the Sun moved about the Earth it still wouldn't change that objective fact. That is how objectivity works. It is independent of what humans believe.

Therefore, if morality is objective then you should be able to point to something that is moral even though all humans believed it to be immoral. You should be able to derive morality without ever referencing the opinions of humans. From what I have seen, no one is able to do that.