Atheists, what needs to happen so that...

Post Reply New Topic

If God made man in his image it's quite obvious God has a few monkeys in his ancestry.

Logic Express? too bad there are not (trial) versions for Windows, it seems a great software for musicians or amateurs, the bad thing is that is only for Mac.

Can I steal this and put it on the "favourite quotes" section of my facebook page pleeaaaase

The big problem is that there is no real geological evidence of a flood or Atlantis, so.... the notion that there was a GREAT flood, and that it covered the Earth and everything else like that seems implausible. It is made worse by the fact that the Biblical story doesn't seem consistent with how reality would have had to work, or even really that consistent with itself. I mean, we have to get Kangaroos to Australia. We have to have a dove get a plant part to show that the flood was ending. We have to get all the plants back and working for the animals. And so on and so forth. I mean..... at this point, I have to consider this entire line of argument delusional.


That there were very few survivors of the flood and so much land poses a massive problem. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the survivors weren't going back into viable ecosystems, but rather given a population of two of every animal, it seems more probable that everyone would go extinct as the carnivores craved the flesh of herbivores(which would have too few numbers to feed the carnivores for a long period) and the herbivores would go extinct given that plants couldn't just spring back from the land. Even all the fish are likely to die given the water either being too salty or too fresh for one group of fish or the other. In the end, the story just falls apart without taping it together with nonsense.



Look, Popper is a noted fan and believer of evolution, regardless of religious issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Poppe ... _Darwinism It is clear from wikipedia that he doesn't like religion, but it is very clear from his writings that he believed VERY strongly in evolution. He went so far as to equate his philosophy of science/epistemology to Darwinian natural selection. I don't think he would go so far just to play politics on the matter, as all he would need is one clear pro-evolutionary statement to rebut the religious opponents. Rather, I think that Popper very deeply believed in evolution as an idea, so I don't think he really changed his mind at all so much as his formulation.


Good arguments? I'd argue to the contrary. The potentially best one is probable a cosmological teleological argument, but that's kind of an appeal to ignorance that doesn't give God much inductive weight. (the premises connecting the improbability to God are rather weak) The cosmological argument is weak because it uses implausible premises to argue that only a timeless mind could create the world(to invoke the WLC version of it), and because it is a lot less of an issue if we hold to a theory of time informed more by relativity, as most variants of the cosmological argument implicitly use a variety of time that is informed by intuition rather than physics. The ontological argument is weak because we can conceive of beings that are incompatible with general theism working under various ontological arguments, as well as general arguments against the ontological argument. And the issues go on and on really.


Well, ok, but this is partially a flaw. Some could actually argue that some of the arguments, such as the ontological argument, make more sense with a being who isn't the Biblical God. For instance, the ontological argument relies on the notion of the greatest possible being, however, it is a matter that many atheists would dispute that the Biblical God is the greatest possible being, given that a large number see the being in scripture as a conflicted and petty tyrant, with a barbaric moral code.


Let's see:
1) Morality is something that people generally have as a result of their evolved impulses. These impulses provide motivational force in the same way that hunger impels animals to eat, and lust impels them to mate. The ones involving morality are different in that they appeal to normative issues, and this different appeal makes some set of impulses moral impulses. Generally, the nature of these impulses is common between human beings. This view is found in many places, including Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil".
2) Morality is a result of human relationships. Human beings are not just independently arising, but rather we arise in social contexts wherein we are in continual relationship with other human beings, and we understand the world through these other human beings. This can be noted in the interpersonal nature of language, and yet the personal use of language as a tool for intellectual consideration, as well as the general need of people for other people including for purposes of social interaction. Being in a relationship with other beings requires certain values given how relationships work by intermeshing the needs of two or more individuals, as in some sense, social groupings are superorganisms. Because of this status, and the notion of social groupings as organisms promoting the interests of the beings in them, human beings have a set of notions about proper treatment of beings within the context of this relationship, and these notions are considered "moral". Morality is essentially a community regulator for maintaining the well-being of the larger group human beings are enmeshed in.


Ok, but the issue is that even if this is to some degree true, that doesn't mean that some assumptions aren't better than other assumptions, and that some assumptions are more or less doubtful than other assumptions. I don't think there is a defender of "pure logic" here, but I don't think one of those is necessary either.

It's a matter of public domain and no charge necessary.

Except #1 can't be true. Evolution essentially is a biological theory based on what seems to be radical changes over time. If evolution is true, then life as we know it is a happy accident. OK, so given the odds and a LOT of time, you might have something in regards to biology. Morals are too specific and too developed to be accidental. If we're relying on evolutionary process alone, then morals shouldn't exist at all. I should be able to go out and do whatever I feel like doing, putting myself in the natural realm of survival of the fittest. As long as I'm tough enough, I can do whatever I feel like doing. Driven by lust, I can have any woman I want whether she consents or not, and I have the right to kill her mate if she has one if he tries to get in the way. If my neighbor has a nicer house than I do, I can use my superior strength to forcibly remove him and enslave his family. I should be able to drive my car as fast as I want to and if I hit a child who happened to be crossing at that time and slowing down is too much of an inconvenience, then it's the child's parents fault for letting her play in the street and I'm doing mankind a favor by getting rid of someone not smart enough to get out of my way.

Obviously that doesn't describe humanity very well. Sure, there are those who do bad things for their own reasons. But in general there is some kind of feeling, be it guilt or some other emotion, that keeps us safely within certain boundaries. Those boundaries do NOT benefit us individually. There is nothing necessarily to GAIN from having morals. If survival of the species is thought of as motivation, why not roam in packs? There you have one main alpha dog, and supporting your alpha dog helps your own survival. Someone gets in your way, you get rid of 'em for peeing on your territory. This certainly promotes the development of the species and allows a little more for individual justice as well as some protection of basic rights. This is obviously a much better plan. So why aren't all humans as a whole like this?

No, something else keeps us in line with very specific rules. The 10 Commandments provide a good summary of what I'm talking about. We tend NOT to deprive others of life and property. In general, we leave people alone if they are married or about to be (OK, so I've been guilty of breaking that one a time or two). What about deception? False testimony in a court of law? Successfully deceiving others and framing our enemies works to our benefit. So why don't we make a practice of this? The few specific "no-nos" we have defy the accidental result of evolution. Hence morality cannot be a result of evolution. It was MADE the way it is and functions the way it does by design.

#2 seems to acknowledge that morals are communicated within communities. We hold certain things in common that keeps us functional within our social groups. But that means that morals have to be communicated from person to person, from one mind to another. Thus we can't have morals unless they leap into our own minds from some external source. For most of us this happens through our parents, but by extension this includes teachers, preachers, co-workers, spouses, police officers, judges, congressmen, and so on. Those people, in turn, had to learn morality themselves from another source. And that prior source had a source itself. This is no longer an issue about evolution. It makes no difference whether man was created or if he crawled out of the ocean. At some point, there had to be a first person from whom morality was communicated to progeny. Before that first person, there could not have been any external source. So where did the first man obtain his moral sensibility?

Since morality jumps from mind to mind, there can be no law without a lawgiver. Without a subject to RECEIVE the law, there is no point in creating law. You have to have both for any moral standard to make any sense. So the Creator of man also had to communicate that which is right and that which is wrong to his creation. In addition, it is necessary for the creation to communicate moral code to his progeny.

So morality isn't by accident but by design. Further, morality is a form if communication. It doesn't make sense, if morality is communicated, that there would never be any external "first cause" or "prime mover" of moral standards. If that is true, then God HAS to exist, else there would be no transmission of morals from the beginning.

You want to argue irreducible complexity for morality? That is not an argument you will win, AngelRho.


Completely wrong. Humans are social animals; we depend on other members of our community for our well-being. Raping your neighbor's wife or stealing his possessions makes him less likely to be willing to help you with your harvest next fall. So you got the nicer house, but have fun starving when winter comes and no one is going to help you survive the hard times.

As you can see, it is often utility maximizing to refrain from being a complete sociopath.


Wrong. Those boundaries do benefit us individually. And... um... humans are like that. We're social animals, we organize ourselves into groups.


Largely out of fear of reprisal. We steal when we can get away with it though, and we kill when we have motive to do so.


How naïve you are.


Um... we do? Are you kidding me? Do you live under a rock somewhere?


Actually, they are exactly what we would expect from evolution. There are also some ideas from economics and game theory that play into the analysis of evolutionary morality. It's a fascinating topic. You can study some of the basic ideas in colonial protists like the slime molds, and in communal animals such as naked mole rats.


Sure doesn't function very well, then. Your proposed Designer sucks at his job.


Given observed human behavior, I don't think you are following the right path of reasoning by arguing for morality as evidence of God's existence. If you haven't noticed, humans are dicks to each other.

Logic Pro, actually, and I actually do use MOST of the software package, including Mainstage 2 for performing live. I have a few keyboards and other midi devices and do play guitar occasionally. The thing I love most about the new version of Mainstage is all it needs is to receive on PC number and my entire rig is instantly set up.

For production and sound design, though, I've begun relying more on my Synclavier, which is a fairly new member of my electronic family. Logic has a learning curve, though it's gotten easier to use in the last two versions. I've gotten so used to it that moving to the Synclavier was tough because its operation is so much simpler than Logic. It's also something you need a lot of discipline and self-control to use. You really learn how to maximize your work when you're forced to ONLY use 32 synth voices and 32 sampler voices. If you don't, you're stuck with a really expensive loop player!

As it is, I've already written two songs, a handbell arrangement for 2 ringers, and I've started work on an album of Christmas instrumentals. I'm also building my own sound library, and I'm looking forward to moving some of the FM sounds to an AKAI sampler and NN-XT (for the more complex ones) for playing live.

Logic and Reason are GREAT for what they are, but there's nothing quite like having an actual professional workstation in front of you to keep you busy and inspired.

Depends on who sets the standard and the basis for comparison. If God sets the standard, then what you observe is human failure to live up to it. If imperfect human beings set the standard, then your statement is representative of human arrogance towards God for not meeting every single sinful desire--suggesting that OUR way is better. Given your statement that we are "dicks to each other," it would certainly seem preferable to follow a Biblically-sourced moral code, one that has not been picked over and suppressed by the actions of a few to satisfy personal whims.

Further, much of your response has completely ignored the fact that IN GENERAL human beings are prevented from certain actions by moral codes. Perjury in court, for instance, is perhaps one of the worst evils perceived in the US. Given the general scrutiny of evidence in the court systems, it isn't always quite so easy to lie and get away with it. Some do, of course. But one only need examine the penalties for such actions in order to decide as to whether "getting away" with it is worth the risk.

Fear of reprisal doesn't work, either. If morality is an accident of evolution, then one need not value anything. Get kicked out of your house? Find someone weaker than you and kick him out of his house. Why even think you deserve your house, anyway? With strength comes a certain amount of power over others. So rather than fear reprisal, why not just enslave others to harvest your crop for you?

For the most part, we do things because we perceive them to be good things. Even if our actions are only self-serving, we have some sense that we deserve to have good things. What has REALLY happened is we've learned to suppress certain convictions, such as telling "a little white lie," often of things that are inconsequential or by which being completely honest and transparent might actually be more hurtful to the person the lie is directed towards. For the most part, we do care about the emotional well-being of others, hence we aren't always quite so direct as we could be. We've developed such talents as "tact" and "politeness" to navigate such rough social roads.

Where do such sensibilities come from? By what are we basing our standards? By what our parents taught us? Who taught them? If morals must be taught, who taught the first human? In order to teach or transmit morals, there MUST be some kind or form of intellect to initiate the communication of morals. The God of the Bible easily fills that role.

Umm.. ok, but the patterns of life are specific, so there is no problem. The "accident" is merely that there is no intention.


I don't think that you've really presented a strong case here. Morals do not seem more complicated than many other phenomena, and not only that, but I imagine that your use of "accidental" is a conflation between purposeless and random. Evolution is often considered purposeless, but it isn't considered random. Genetic variation is random, but selection is non-random


Nobody is tough enough. Humans are social creatures, and groups are generally tougher than individuals. Not only that, but groups also are beneficial to the welfare of members of the groups. Even just being cast out of a group makes a lot of the delusional psychoses you think of rather difficult to pull off too well.

That being said, there is a lot of interesting work on economics and law. (well, I find it interesting at least)


No, it really doesn't. It is good that I am not talking about this. These boundaries often do benefit us individually(do you think that psychopaths have successful lives? A few do, but a lot are locked away. Psychopathy is just a limited undercurrent in a generally pro-social environment), and they certainly benefit the group's success overall. We do kind of "roam in packs", we do get rid of people for getting in our way, and we are kind of like this.


No, the rules generally aren't *that* specific. Instead, they are a bit looser, with variances based upon community. Just with some commonalities. As it stands, some groups do not really accept the 10 commandments *that* much. And some are tighter to some commands than others. Even further, unsuccessfully doing these things works AGAINST our benefit. If the situation does warrant such extreme measures though, than of course a lot of us will do these things. Proceeding from the fictional successful psychopath to the real world unsuccessful psychopath isn't a good idea, and we have to keep in mind that most psychos are unsuccessful. If they WERE successful, then we would actually start seeing this on a larger scale. Psychopathy does exist in human populations, and it is just an undercurrent.

Now, to go back to what I said earlier, Michael Shermer actually has advocated this in a book where he addresses this entire matter from an evolutionary perspective. That book was "The Science of Good and Evil", so to say that this is all nonsense seems silly. Also, Shermer isn't a rube, as he has advanced degrees in psychology and the history of science, and has written other books on evolution and psychology and other relevant topics. He even addresses the Jewish tradition.(one can question his interpretation, but I don't care that much)


Why not ask who was the first man to obtain his linguistic abilities? I would have to argue that this framework is sort of questionable. The reason being that there could be proto-moral feelings, such as those that would exist in earlier creatures with greater social behavior. The issue is that the interactions got more and more refined, and eventually could allow for more complicated relationships. This seems kind of obvious in an evolutionary framework. That being said, I wasn't actually trying to tie this notion in so much to evolution, but rather just explaining how morality can be inferred from a current state of affairs without looking to predecessors.


Umm... the notion that law exists without a lawgiver actually isn't an impossibility or even a new idea at this point. Friedrich Hayek's book "Rules and Order" was all about laws without lawgivers, and frankly, I believe most historical societies functionally had laws without real law-givers.(Hayek himself mentions that the first code by Hammurabi was really just an innovation in writing down the laws, as it still is the case that the laws preceded Hammurabi in many ways. Even further, our own history starting from Common Law kind of shows how much legal categories were just made-up by communities, as the common law was not created by a law-maker, so much as judges trying to assess what was fair) The issue is that laws are often merely systemized and enforced norms. If anything, the notion that laws created all norms in the first place, given how difficult norms can be for any mind to foresee just seems sort of ridiculous, and a poor understanding of human behavior. Heck, there have been a number of studies on communities with rules but without central enforcement or centralized justification, so I don't really buy your notion "there can be no law without a lawgiver". It isn't something that is derived from history. It isn't something that is necessitated by philosophy. It just is something that you're presupposing and then are later projecting onto human situations.


You haven't proved the former.

Umm.... you are assuming that a pure morality had to emerge at the start. The issue is that most linguists believe that languages evolved over time and from simpler forms, so if I am holding that morality is like language, then I certainly can hold to the same assumptions.

Really, I don't think you've actually engaged these ideas so much as strawmen you created just so you can knock them down.

Right, and the economic analysis of law does examine the penalties for these actions. And yes, human beings do work by assessing risk.


No, it really does work quite well. Evolution values the ability to reproduce and have viable off-spring, so it selects for that. As for your notion of strength, it is literally stupid. AngelRho, let me make this clear: a single person is generally weaker than two people, or even any single person who gets the jump on that first party. So, talking about slavery? How??? Slavery only works if you have a group of people willing to enforce your enslavement arrangements, otherwise your slaves run away, kill you while you are sleeping, or gang up on you. The same with any other talk of a "stronger person". Nobody is strong enough to protect themselves while sleeping. Nobody is strong enough to fend off an organized attack against them by multiple armed parties. Your fictitious psychopath can't win in these cases, and it is obvious to anybody with a bit of knowledge. Even further, the fictitious psychopath won't have allies, and that will also screw him over.


Yes, we perceive things to be good things. I don't know how this detracts from Orwell's point other than the fact that Orwell was crass about it. Morality does seem to be a set of instruments separate from other instruments. It is probably even a large set of different instruments. This kind of allows for internal issues about the right thing vs something else.


Yeah... your reasoning only works through its shallowness. You aren't engaging the answers given in a real manner, and you might even lack the mental frameworks to do so.

You missed the point. If morality was designed by God and is such a great system, you have to explain why the system fails, and why humans fail to live up to those standards. No one has ever gone through life and kept the 10 Commandments, much less all the other minor commands in the Torah.


The sense of morality and the conscience has an evolutionary source, though. If we could trust people to innately follow this moral code, we wouldn't need such high scrutiny to avoid perjury in court.

And yes, you have to examine the penalties to decide whether transgressing moral codes is worth the risk. That only bolsters my argument and undermines yours.


What? Completely wrong. You would value your life, your family's lives, and your ability to produce offspring. Stealing someone's house leads them to want to kill you, and that kind of hinders your ability to reproduce.


And in what possible way does this undermine an evolutionary explanation?


Because coexisting peacefully with others in social situations is part of being in a community, and the community benefits us.

Orwell, you know the answer. It is "Adam and Eve ate a fruit".


Actually, both explanations support morality and moral failings. It is just that the evolutionary explanation is better as it can explain moral failing and general psychology in a more reasonable manner. The fruit just has its own problems in accepting it as a reasonable interpretation of a theistic hypothesis. So, I still think that your idea is better, I just don't think that your rebuttal works well, unless you address the Tree of Knowledge both Good and Evil. (And if you question the fall of the devil, "free will" will be invoked)

But yeah.... despite that, you still have to admit that AngelRho's rebuttal has a lot to improve about it.

If undeniable, undebatable, certain, verifiable scientific evidence of a god was presented to me, I would believe.

...you will stop believing in a God?

I'm just wondering since in my other thread it seems like its really hard for Christians to be convinced a God doesn't exist.

Does all suffering on earth need to end through medical intervention?
Do you need to physically see the entire universe?
Does science need to actively disprove there is nothing more than natural processes?
Me punching myself out from the grave after being revived using nanomachines?

Your thoughts please...

-It won't happen. There will always be suffering on earth, no matter how good the medical intervention.
-Sure, I'll see the entire universe and start worshipping God for His creation.
-"Natural" is a relative term. People define "natural" as follwing a set of "laws" which I believe God created.
-??