Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Truly Enlightened]

There's no inconsistency. If we start killing all we thought were selfish people and liars and cheating spouses etc it would be detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the general population. Hence immoral.No of course it isn't. A lot of killlings are done to prevent the killer from causing much more harm to the society and the general population than the harm caused by killing him. Hence not killing would cause the greatest amount of harm.You are just being funny right? This is a joke? Letting a person go around killing many people causes less harm to the society and the general population than killing him (one person)?This must be a joke. Letting a killer go around killing people causes less harm to the society and the general population than killing him?Because it's completely illogical to say that letting a killer keep on killing people is less harmful to the well-being and survival of the society and the general population than killing him. Are you completely unaware that killing somebody has consequences for others than the one killing and the one killed?

The joke is your inability to comprehend anything I say. No matter how many times I state that no one in their right mind thinks that we should allow a killer to continue killing in society, you still keep parroting the same mindless canned, false-equivocated, moralistic sound-bites. Maybe if someone else explains it to you, you might understand and stop repeating this nonsense like a broken record. Playing the appeal to incredulity card, only demonstrates the last desperate acts of a losing argument. So go get your popcorn, hot dogs, and old-fashion camcorder, and go watch that bomb tote'n Arab get his head splattered all over the screen for future entertainment. I'm sure societies ethos will be greatly improved and benefitted by this obvious moral experience. My argument was not based on the subject's Pathos, it was based on the subject's Logos. As long as you can cling to anything that can validate your prejudices and limited worldview, the rest of the total picture becomes irrelevant. Fortunately, there are more people who do not have the same closed mind and tunnel logic, and are not immune to the idea that they might be wrong. These people know the true meaning of the phrase "to err on the side of caution". A principle that seems foreign to you.

Since you can't address any of my concerns, other than repeating the same rote responses, I think that it is best that we simple agree to disagree. I think that we both have a fundamentally different sense of what is a moral act, and what isn't.

 

[ArtieE]

The joke is your inability to comprehend anything I say. No matter how many times I state that no one in their right mind thinks that we should allow a killer to continue killing in society, you still keep parroting the same mindless canned, false-equivocated, moralistic sound-bites. Maybe if someone else explains it to you, you might understand and stop repeating this nonsense like a broken record. Playing the appeal to incredulity card, only demonstrates the last desperate acts of a losing argument. So go get your popcorn, hot dogs, and old-fashion camcorder, and go watch that bomb tote'n Arab get his head splattered all over the screen for future entertainment. I'm sure societies ethos will be greatly improved and benefitted by this obvious moral experience. My argument was not based on the subject's Pathos, it was based on the subject's Logos. As long as you can cling to anything that can validate your prejudices and limited worldview, the rest of the total picture becomes irrelevant. Fortunately, there are more people who do not have the same closed mind and tunnel logic, and are not immune to the idea that they might be wrong. These people know the true meaning of the phrase "to err on the side of caution". A principle that seems foreign to you.

Since you can't address any of my concerns, other than repeating the same rote responses, I think that it is best that we simple agree to disagree. I think that we both have a fundamentally different sense of what is a moral act, and what isn't.

You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population?

Still waiting for an answer...

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population?

Still waiting for an answer...

"You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm." This means to most rational people, that I will never think that the act of killing DOES NOT cause the greatest amount of harm, period. Why? Do you believe that the act of killing will cause the least amount of harm? So killing a killer would cause zero amount of harm to society, only to the killer. But the act of killing, stated many times before, can be a justifiable act but never a moral act. So are you just going to keep asking the same question and assume that there will be a different answer? There is a word that would describe this sort of behavior.

Maybe we should be the world's morality police. Maybe we should Nuke all countries that don't share our sense of morality? Did you mean the world society, or just your own society? Remember anything that causes harm to society MUST be morally dealt with, right? It would also be wrong to just ignore genocide, wanton killings, racism, human rights abuse, or any acts causing the greatest amount of harm to any society, right? Or is just ignoring it a morally correct?

 

[Polymath257]

***Moderation Post***

I remind people of Rule 1:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL COMMENTS.

 

[ArtieE]

Maybe we should be the world's morality police. Maybe we should Nuke all countries that don't share our sense of morality?

That would be detrimental to every society and population on the planet... Chernobyl was bad enough...

Did you mean the world society, or just your own society?

Since we are at a point where we can travel anywhere we want in a few hours and communicate with almost anyone everywhere instantly the world is practically one society. Anything we say and do can have a positive or negative impact on anybody anywhere. So the moral thing to do is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the population of the combined world society.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That would be detrimental to every society and population on the planet... Chernobyl was bad enough...Since we are at a point where we can travel anywhere we want in a few hours and communicate with almost anyone everywhere instantly the world is practically one society. Anything we say and do can have a positive or negative impact on anybody anywhere. So the moral thing to do is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the population of the combined world society.

Are you saying that forcing our standard of morality onto the rest of the world's societies is morally wrong? Wouldn't it be beneficial to the world's societies as a whole? Your not saying that our standard of morality is wrong or exclusive, are you? And unless Chernobyl was deliberately caused, it was just an accident and has nothing to do with morality. Or, do you think that it was not an accident?

Exactly, what is the most moral thing we can do that is the "most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the population of the combined world society"? And, how would we monitor and verify that our moral standards were being practiced or followed?

 

[ArtieE]

"You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm." This means to most rational people, that I will never think that the act of killing DOES NOT cause the greatest amount of harm, period. Why? Do you believe that the act of killing will cause the least amount of harm? So killing a killer would cause zero amount of harm to society, only to the killer. But the act of killing, stated many times before, can be a justifiable act but never a moral act. So are you just going to keep asking the same question and assume that there will be a different answer? There is a word that would describe this sort of behavior.

I'll keep asking until you actually answer the question. You may of course choose not to answer it at all. Then all you have to say is: "I won't answer that question" and I'll stop asking.

Here it is again: You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population? Any rational person would say that killing the killer would cause the smallest amount of harm as opposed to letting him go on killing. What do you think?

 

[ArtieE]

Are you saying that forcing our standard of morality onto the rest of the world's societies is morally wrong? Wouldn't it be beneficial to the world's societies as a whole? Your not saying that our standard of morality is wrong or exclusive, are you?

"Our" standard? Doing what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the population isn't "our" standard but everybody's.

Exactly, what is the most moral thing we can do that is the "most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the population of the combined world society"? And, how would we monitor and verify that our moral standards were being practiced or followed?

Not "our" standards but everybody's standards. We could set up organizations like the UN for example. And Amnesty International. We could create things like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
There's so much we can do...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All good objectivity is determined by subjectivity.

Your post reminds me of story where you are the Zen master and the guy you are responding to is one of the monks:

One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock over there only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"

Did you hear the one about the zen master ordering a hot dog outside of Costco? He asked the vendor to make him one with everything.

This pun annoyed the hot dog vendor, so he didn't give the zen master any change.

When the zen master asked for his change, the vendor informed him that change must come from within.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'll keep asking until you actually answer the question. You may of course choose not to answer it at all. Then all you have to say is: "I won't answer that question" and I'll stop asking.

Here it is again: You said and I quote: "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the act of killing does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". So what do you think? Would killing the killer cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population or would letting him keep on killing cause the greatest amount of harm to society and the population? Any rational person would say that killing the killer would cause the smallest amount of harm as opposed to letting him go on killing. What do you think?

"Our" standard? Doing what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the population isn't "our" standard but everybody's.Not "our" standards but everybody's standards. We could set up organizations like the UN for example. And Amnesty International. We could create things like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
There's so much we can do...

You do realise that other countries to some extent may have a different standard of morality than we do, don't you? Some countries would be considered more or less moral by our standards. The standard of morality is relative, as in Nature. In some countries, killing is seen as being morally beneficial to their society(death squads in Brazil, Sanctioned revenge killings in the Middle East). In some countries, religious persecution, limitations on the number of children, freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and other freedoms are severely limited to what is beneficial to the majority, or what is in the best interest of the state. Our sense of morality has certainly evolved, and is certainly subjective. Therefore "everyone" does NOT have the same sense or standard of morality, as those people born with different languages, different cultural cues, a different cultural value systems, and different social expectations. So NOT "everyone's standard".

The peace organizations you mentioned have NO real enforcement powers. They can't affect any countries' ideology, or their social and political practices. They are a monitoring and reaction(not pro-action) agencies. They all have their purpose, but not to impose or promote their moral standards. Even the peacekeepers of the UN(over 3300 have died keeping the peace) can only monitor the truce between nations, they are morally neutral.

Now, for the last time NO! NO! NO! I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS DELUSIONAL THAT THE ACT OF KILLING THE KILLER WOULD CAUSE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF HARM TO SOCIETY AND THE POPULATION, OR THAT LETTING HIM KEEP ON KILLING WILL NOT INDEED CAUSE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF HARM TO THE POPULATION AND SOCIETY. Of course this conclusion was made up by you, and had nothing to do with my original statement(a misrepresentation and straw man fallacy), no matter how many times you try to imply that both statements are related. My statement was, "You are truly delusional if you think that I could ever think that the ACT OF KILLING(itself) does NOT cause the greatest amount of harm". Most people would agree the act of killing causes harm, period. Don't you agree that the act of killing, does cause the greatest amount of harm? This is another question you avoided, just like all my other questions. I don't blame you. If you did answer them, it would expose your fragile position for what it is. So go ahead and keep asking, under the pretense that the question has not been answered, YET AGAIN. We're definitely done here.

 

[ArtieE]

You do realise that other countries to some extent may have a different standard of morality than we do, don't you? Some countries would be considered more or less moral by our standards. The standard of morality is relative, as in Nature. In some countries, killing is seen as being morally beneficial to their society

Ah. "Killing is seen as morally beneficial to their society." So they have the same moral standard as us, they also want to do what's beneficial for their society. So what you call having "a different standard of morality" actually means that they have a different concept of what is beneficial?

Most people would agree the act of killing causes harm, period.

Of course killing causes harm. Never said otherwise.

Don't you agree that the act of killing, does cause the greatest amount of harm?

No I don't agree. That depends on the circumstances.

This is another question you avoided,

No I haven't avoided that question. Here again is the answer. You can kill a killer before he continues to kill, or you can let the killer kill as many as he wants. In this case, not killing the killer would cause the greatest amount of harm. You would end up with a lot of people dead or harmed instead of just one killer dead. So the act of killing the killer, does not cause the greatest amount of harm. Not killing him does.

 

[ArtieE]

There seems to be great confusion about morality. Here is an explanation.

The moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the population. This applies to every person and society on the planet. This is what I mean when I say that we all have the same standard for what is moral. What is moral is what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental. You can never claim that the moral act is the act that is most detrimental. That would be a contradiction in terms. So when Truly Enlightened says things like: "other countries to some extent may have a different standard of morality than we do" and "The standard of morality is relative" he means that "other countries to some extent may have a different conception of what is beneficial or detrimental". That doesn't mean they have a different conception of what is moral, what is moral is always what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental, what they do have is a different conception of what is beneficial or detrimental. Those who can see the difference understands, those who don't will continually go on saying things like "morality is relative".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

There seems to be great confusion about morality. Here is an explanation.

Ah. "Killing is seen as morally beneficial to their society." So they have the same moral standard as us, they also want to do what's beneficial for their society. So what you call having "a different standard of morality" actually means that they have a different concept of what is beneficial?Of course killing causes harm. Never said otherwise.No I don't agree. That depends on the circumstances.No I haven't avoided that question. Here again is the answer. You can kill a killer before he continues to kill, or you can let the killer kill as many as he wants. In this case, not killing the killer would cause the greatest amount of harm. You would end up with a lot of people dead or harmed instead of just one killer dead. So the act of killing the killer, does not cause the greatest amount of harm. Not killing him does.

The moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the population. This applies to every person and society on the planet. This is what I mean when I say that we all have the same standard for what is moral. What is moral is what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental. You can never claim that the moral act is the act that is most detrimental. That would be a contradiction in terms. So when Truly Enlightened says things like: "other countries to some extent may have a different standard of morality than we do" and "The standard of morality is relative" he means that "other countries to some extent may have a different conception of what is beneficial or detrimental". That doesn't mean they have a different conception of what is moral, what is moral is always what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental, what they do have is a different conception of what is beneficial or detrimental. Those who can see the difference understands, those who don't will continually go on saying things like "morality is relative".

How can you say in one sentence that the act of killing causes harm, and in the next sentence disagree that the act of killing anything, under any circumstances, will not cause the greatest amount of harm? Do you think that if you only think about killing, that the act of killing will just happen? Do you think that the act of killing will cause very little harm? You take a statistically rare example(suicide bombing in America) as an example of justifiable homicide, and then try to equivocate that not only is the act morally right, but that the omission of the act is morally wrong. So do you agree with the idea of pre-emptive killing for the right reasons? Maybe we should kill all psychopaths, sociopaths, or any persons that represents a physical danger to themselves and others in society. What is their benefit to society? Therefore, being "beneficial" to society is not the only criteria for defining a moral act.? What about answering all my other questions, or do you just cherry-pick only the questions you can distort and misrepresent? Can you also see into the future. Unless you are God, you don't know whether a person will kill, or will continue to kill. More pathos logic. You also have no idea of the difference between a justifiable act, and a moral act. You just can't seem to understand that no one is talking about the justification of the act. There is nothing to defend, regarding any justified killing action. No matter what I say you just keep trying to defend something that exist only in your mind, that you think that I am arguing about. If you want to call the act of killing a justifiable and moral act under some circumstances, and an immoral unjustifiable act under other circumstances, then I certainly disagree. Since the act itself will always produce the same outcome(death), the act can't be moral and immoral. The act must be one or the other. Since you can't explain any discontinuity in the act of killing, I won't belabour the point again.

"The moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the population". Do you think that this general definition is not open to interpretation by different societies? Do you think that some interpretations might lead to their own self-serving standards being created? Or are you suggesting, or implying that ANYTHING that is beneficial or non-detrimental to society, is explicitly moral? What is the difference(in context) between having a different moral conception of a moral action, and having a different moral standard for a moral action? I gave you examples of the different standards or conceptions, practiced by different governments. These actions are considered by them as moral actions. So are you saying that all governments have the same moral standards, but different moral conceptions? You ignored the examples, and simply changed the terminology to infer that the standards are not different. Do you also think that morality is absolute or relative? People reading these posts can interpret their meaning in anyway they like, they don't need your guidance or your direction. Even if it is only post-mortem. Again, I don't expect you to answer any of my questions.

 

[ArtieE]

Maybe we should kill all psychopaths, sociopaths, or any persons that represents a physical danger to themselves and others in society.

If people started killing people they think are a physical danger to themselves and others it would be detrimental to society and the population. They might end up getting themselves killed since they would be the ones representing physical danger.

What about answering all my other questions, or do you just cherry-pick only the questions you can distort and misrepresent?

I answer the relevant questions. Others are irrelevant to the scenario we are discussing.

Can you also see into the future. Unless you are God, you don't know whether a person will kill, or will continue to kill.

Depends on the situation.

Since the act itself will always produce the same outcome(death)

The act itself causes the death of the killer, but if you let the killer keep on killing he might produce 20 deaths. Wouldn't that be the greatest amount of harm?

"The moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the population". Do you think that this general definition is not open to interpretation by different societies? Do you think that some interpretations might lead to their own self-serving standards being created? Or are you suggesting, or implying that ANYTHING that is beneficial or non-detrimental to society, is explicitly moral? What is the difference(in context) between having a different moral conception of a moral action, and having a different moral standard for a moral action? I gave you examples of the different standards or conceptions, practiced by different governments. These actions are considered by them as moral actions. So are you saying that all governments have the same moral standards, but different moral conceptions? You ignored the examples, and simply changed the terminology to infer that the standards are not different. Do you also think that morality is absolute or relative? People reading these posts can interpret their meaning in anyway they like, they don't need your guidance or your direction. Even if it is only post-mortem. Again, I don't expect you to answer any of my questions.

I would if you had restricted yourself to a reasonable amount of questions. It appears that you just write down whatever pops into your head at any given time. Provide one logical and rational question and I'll answer it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I feel well qualified to say that rape is a bad thing.

But

So is theft.

You do know about dilemmas, moral conflicts,
"no right answer""damned if you do, damned if
you don't". Right?

You also know that there is no precise
definition for rape; what is a crime here, is not, there.

As in, say, the girl will be "legal age" at midnight, she is
willing, and it is half an hour till midnight.

How do you make an absolute out of something
with such blurry edges?

I dont care for the role of victim, but if harming me were
the only way to save the ship, I'd hope someone would
save the ship.

Note that "we" send soldiers out to face unspeakable
horror and harm, often enough for no good reason at all.

Is there a moral absolute there? How about using a flame
thrower on an enemy soldier who is there involuntarily?

How about if a soldier is ordered to rape a girl, or the
commander will boil her alive and slaughter the whole village?

I am using improbable scenarios, sure, but then,a
lot of very improbable things do happen. And
absolutes are things that can stand any test-
right?

You say there are moral immuteables, or something.
Moral absolutes.
You have not identified one.

I see. I understand what a moral dilemma is and you've given some excellent examples above.

If Jesus Christ exists, it is absolutely moral to obey His commands, including doing our best to honor our parents despite their shortcomings. Honor could include anything from a birthday card to an intervention or even calling the authorities against a drug-abusing parent.

The culture demonstrates the evils involved when people rebel utterly against parents, as opposed to making alternative choices while honoring their parents.

 

[BilliardsBall]

At five ft and + or - 100 lbs, I wont make much of a cop.

No point it trying to go into when there would or would not be assault charges.

As as rule though,you provoke someone, and you get clobbered, few will say you did not get what you had coming to you. Or, "what did you think would happen?"

If you cannot figure out what will or will not provoke
strangers to say or do things to you in response, you might want to avoid going out there.

Side note here, your story about all this abuse rings hollow. You've given no credible account indicating what you said and why you got said reaction.

You made the claim of a "scandal" in another thread, and
have failed utterly to provide any evidence at all that you did
not just make it up. The lack of credibility in one reinforces
lack of credibility in the other.

Sorry-ah, as we'd say in HK,but that is how it is.

I wasn't intending to provide credulity, it made no sense that I would be kind to someone(s) and receive spit, violence, calumny. Since I have friends (and strangers) who've witnessed such happenings while preaching/witnessing, I came to the logical conclusion--some people take out the hate and pain they have against Christians/religious who wronged them on other preachers and/or have the devil inside.

I find the devildidit a tad comforting when I consider the evils of the Holocaust and etc.

 

[Audie]

I see. I understand what a moral dilemma is and you've given some excellent examples above.

If Jesus Christ exists, it is absolutely moral to obey His commands, including doing our best to honor our parents despite their shortcomings. Honor could include anything from a birthday card to an intervention or even calling the authorities against a drug-abusing parent.

The culture demonstrates the evils involved when people rebel utterly against parents, as opposed to making alternative choices while honoring their parents.

As noted above-

You say there are moral immuteables, or something.
Moral absolutes.
You have not identified one.

We can quit now. if you could identify a moral absolute you would have by now.

 

[Audie]

I wasn't intending to provide credulity, it made no sense that I would be kind to someone(s) and receive spit, violence, calumny. Since I have friends (and strangers) who've witnessed such happenings while preaching/witnessing, I came to the logical conclusion--some people take out the hate and pain they have against Christians/religious who wronged them on other preachers and/or have the devil inside.

I find the devildidit a tad comforting when I consider the evils of the Holocaust and etc.

No chance that the logical conclusion is that the fault is in you, not
those other people? Maybe?

You may mean "credibility" not "credulity"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As noted above-

You say there are moral immuteables, or something.
Moral absolutes.
You have not identified one.

We can quit now. if you could identify a moral absolute you would have by now.

There are multiple such:

My conscience would always assault me about the justified rape we discussed, because rape is always wrong.

It is always wrong to kill a lover's spouse to covet the lover, always. You have a remarkable ability to tell me I can kill my lover's wife to save the world, since you recognize how we can ADD to an absolute moral to make 1+2= moral 3, while misunderstanding that 2 always equals 2 regardless.

 

[Audie]

There are multiple such:

My conscience would always assault me about the justified rape we discussed, because rape is always wrong.

It is always wrong to kill a lover's spouse to covet the lover, always. You have a remarkable ability to tell me I can kill my lover's wife to save the world, since you recognize how we can ADD to an absolute moral to make 1+2= moral 3, while misunderstanding that 2 always equals 2 regardless.

I wonder if you are just failing to recognize the concept of a lesser of two evils.

No remarkable ability required to see it. Try!