So you’re saying that morality exists independently of God? That God does not decide what is right and wrong?
It’s neither. The argument from “fine tuning” merely attempts to draw a bullseye around the arrow. It’s sophist bullshit.
I’m atheist. It’s wrong because I say so. There’s nothing to “admit.”
I’ve explained it already. it’s neurological hardwiring. Evolution. We are naturally selected for empathy and protective instincts towards our offspring. No magic involved.
How do you know (or prove) that God is not limited by time or space, isn’t that just some peoples idea of what God is? It is still just a matter of Faith not fact.
How does a being exist, with out first being in existence? That is your burden of proof!
First one has to prove there is God before they can know anything about Him and faith can never be proof of anything. One first has to prove what they believe is true before they can state it as fact!
No, there’s an evolutionary purpose.
Assume for the sake of argument that, say, your daughter is three. The odds that she’ll grow up to be a healthy adult who can pass on your genes in future generations improve if you sign on for a culture that enshrines a “don’t rape three-year-olds” value. So long as you weren’t planning to rape any three-year-olds, such a prohibition doesn’t really cost you anything; it just helps your daughter (and cousins, and siblings, and so on) not get traumatized or killed or whatever.
[/QUOTE]
1> a) The reason the rape of 3 year old is wrong is because it contravenes an a moral code that determines how we should behave towards one another. b) This code is objective or absolute; it is beyond our subjectivity, beyond our collective capability to devise. c) The reason we recognise this moral code is because it has been endowed upon us by an intelligent agent who created us with aspects of it’s intelligence.
2> Not only do you rather flatter the evolutionary process (for it is far more blind than you suggest), you mistake it. Raping a 3 year old does not prevent the rapists genes being carried on. Indeed in an evolutionary it is more likely to be the male line one would refer to pass on, so your argument does not stand up.
As you seem unaware of the many fabrications by supporters of evolution, I suggest you research Ernst Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” forgery, or the Piltdown Man Hoax, the Java Man claims, Pithecanthropus Erectus or Nebraska Man. There are more, but these will get you started.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:416, topic:551952”]
Nonsense. There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:416, topic:551952”]
Communism is political atheism. It was a political system that sought to suppress and ultimately eliminate religious thought and expression. I can understand your denials, however history cannot tolerate them.
As to your latter claims, it’s worthy of another thread. However I would just ask you to consider removing your mind from the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and consider the thousands of organisations around the world who support relief and work amongst the poor and ask yyour self how many of them arre motivated by an atheistic ethos. Then consider the Salvation Army, World Vision, Tear Fund, Christian Aid Intl, the IOCC, the list could go on and on.
Just because you aren’t able to understand something doesn’t mean it is nonsense.
It’s interesting that you deny the evolution of behaviors that facilitate living in social groups, but blindly and without any evidence accept the existence of a supernatural God. Are you gullible when it suits your biases and skeptical when it challenges them?
I don’t think you understand argumentation. A statement is not argumentation.
An ideology is simply a set of ideas or concepts. Athiesm often tries to hide behind what it claims it is not, but that is simply to avoid scrutiny. Atheism is an ideology.
Hawking has published numerous statements that speak of God. I would sugggest hawkings view has vacilated considerably, between atheism and deism.
Ah but here we see a double standard.
You (I speak broadly) require ‘proof’ of God, yet you do not require ‘proof’ of principles of quantum mechanics.
You reject an argument from authority when it supports design, yet you accept what those same physicists say about virtual particles or the quantum vacuum.
Do you see a problem here?
I’m having trouble understanding what you are unable to grasp? We have non-precocious children. They need a decade and a half of training and protection before they’re ready to be on their own. It is obvious that protecting children is a behavior that would be built into humans by evolution.
This isn’t some far out thought. It’s pretty simple. If you’re having trouble accepting it, blame your ideology.
It is interesting that you continue to misrepresent me.
I have not denied the evolution of behavours per se, indeed I have not denied evolution as a biological mechanism at all.
My position is that evolution cannot explain many aspects of human behaviour, including benevolence and objective morality.
Benevolence cannot be adequately explained by purely evolutionary repsonses, because there is no place in a purely naturalistic development for unrewarded assistance of ones fellow man. This is an intrinsic response that actually costs the individual who gives. When I travel to a third world country to provide aid and sustainance, I do so at my own cost, risk and discomfort. I gain nothing material at all. Now if you want to argue that I I receive a feel good factor, then you will need to provide naturalistic proof for that, because it has no scientific foundation.
Wrong. It has been explained to you again and again how evolution can produce benevolence; the fact that this doesn’t fit your parody version of evolution isn’t our fault.
Again, nonsense. Communism is a belief system - a religion in all but name - that professes atheism for the same reason Christianity denies all gods but its own. Neither belief system likes competition. That doesn’t mean communism = atheism. Believers like yourself bring it up and pretend that they are the same because otherwise you don’t have anything to bash atheism with. Where are the horrible atheist atrocities in places where atheists are common but communism isn’t?
Quite a few. And they are by nature more genuinely benevolent than any religion.
Nonsense. There is no such entity much less communication from one. And the effects of evolution explain why we protect children just fine.
More nonsense. It prevents the rapist’s genes from being carried on when the father of the child guts him and sets the corpse on fire. Or in more modern societies, when he gets tossed into prison, possibly chemically castrated, and shunned if he ever gets out. “Child molester” is NOT a label that is going to help you attract women.
No, it’s not. It is one belief, not a “set of ideas or concepts”. It has no goals, no commandments, no plan; it’s just a disbelief in gods.
No, he just pretended to respect religion for a time in order to avoid offending his first wife and out of fear of the believers.
Only in your own mind. We have consumer electronics that use quantum mechanical principles to function. The proof that the physicists know what they are doing is overwhelming. On the other hand, there’s no evidence for even the possibility of gods, much less their reality. And the people who claim otherwise have a relentless history of being wrong.
Not believing in Unicorns is an ideology?
Not believing in Vampires is an ideology?
Not believing in Zombies is an ideology?
Not believing in Santa Claus is an ideology?
Not believing in Mermaids is an ideology?
Not believing in Zeus is an ideology?
Not believing in the Power Rangers is an ideology?
Not believing in Superman is an ideology?
You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Perhaps this will help you understand.
Your example above relates to sane people. What of those who do not behave in this manner? Have they somehow missed out on the evolutionary journey?
Yes. That’s pretty much how evolution works in the first place. People who do things like get themselves imprisoned or killed for child molestation leave fewer offspring than those that don’t, therefore child molestation is a rarity, not the norm.
And you don’t understand athiesm. For unless you want to hide behind the softening of the ideological withdrawl of the recent decades, athiesm is an affirmative statement that there are “no gods”. This is an ideology that has developed a political foundation, it comprises national and international organisation, much like any religion. It’s advocates write books, attend conferences, lobby for political influence, arre activists within the eduxation and legal systems.
Anything like this for superman?