Page 18 of 53 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 526

Thread: The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

  1. #171
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,208
    Amen (Given)
    4982
    Amen (Received)
    4546
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Your link goes to a post in which you quote an argument by William Lane Craig. Is that what you're referring to as "my argument"?
    You can do better than that, Doug. The quote was there to support and amplify what I said in the preceding paragraph, so, yes, my argument does include a reference to an external source. What of it? Are you going to address it now or continue to play these silly games?
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 07-12-2018 at 02:04 PM.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  2. #172
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,396
    Amen (Given)
    933
    Amen (Received)
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Yes, you addressed it by attempting to trap me with a "gotcha" question and then cried about it when I neatly sidestepped your trap and cut your legs out from under you. Now stop playing these silly games and see if you can actually get beyond the first sentence of my argument.
    The first sentence says: "If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed."

    I could be wrong but it seems to me that according to you the following sentences serve as premises that necessarily lead to this conclusion. The sentences say: "After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time."

    It is rather unclear to me how the fact that we are "doomed" to perish in and of itself should serve as a premise for there to be no morality unless you already presuppose that some God must provide justice in eternity. A "justice" that for many Christians includes etarnal torture and pain for those who followed other religions or had no religions but lived peaceful lives, were friendly and loving and so on. To hell with them if they did not believe in Christ, seems to be the idea.

    I also cannot help but note the fact the expression of "accidental by-products of nature" is a rather narrow minded understanding of what a human being ultimately is. It should not be necessary to remind anyone about it but human beings are in fact reflecting. They have a mind, a conscience, feelings, reason and the potential to love each other. To think of human beings as a "thing" or something that just "is" or is some sort of "accidental by-product" is extremely narrow minded with regard to the existential perspectives of lives that we are all perfectly aware of as human beings. As persons capable af acting, reflecting and having knowledge of ourselves there is no way in which we simply "are". Or if we "are" in any way we "are" aware of ourselves as individuals capable of shaping and changing ourselves. We are not just following the built in software or following instinct. We are agents, reflective persons with a mind. To the regard reflecting human beings or their mind as an "accidental by product" is to presuppose an understanding of reality that denies the reality of the human mind (whatever its metaphysical status may be).

    The line you asked us to see if we could get "beyond" is only a statement. The statement seems to indicate a conclusion. The premises provided for the conclusion show a very narrow minded understanding of reality and the human condition. It neglects more than 2000 years of history that provides different aspects, theories and ideas into why human beings are so special. To think you can write that of with a claim of "accidental by-product" is narrow minded to say the least. So, that was "your argument".

    Now, don't support your argument by weblink but provide us with knowledge of what else he may have to say in favour of his case because what you have provided so far does nothing to prove the conclusion. For those who have knowledge on the history of philosphy it does not even do anything to strengthen the case. At best it does something to strengthen the idea that he presupposes his conclusions and follows a narrow minded aproach.

    Btw: Note the biased language used to describe the topic discusses: We are told about "the herd morality" and not the morality follow by reflecting persons, rational beings and the like. By using such language the writer demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of the theories provided on this area and is basically creating a straw man.
    Last edited by Charles; 07-12-2018 at 02:29 PM.

  3. #173
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,396
    Amen (Given)
    933
    Amen (Received)
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And like Chimps and other primates (our cousins) we are biologically determined to harm each other.
    Interesting perspective, seer. It says quite a lot of your understanding of what you are as a person and what human beings are in general. Unless, of course, on further reflection you note that there seems to be another perspective that contradicts biology in your "nature". Could it be that we are starting to touch upon a capability you have which is also a precondition for all of us to engage in moral debate? Give it some thought and I am sure you will see why so many of your statements miss perhaps the most central parts of being human.

  4. #174
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,537
    Amen (Given)
    930
    Amen (Received)
    16114
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Becca.gif

    You're welcome
    Last edited by rogue06; 07-12-2018 at 03:12 PM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  5. #175
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,537
    Amen (Given)
    930
    Amen (Received)
    16114
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And it is a fact, like our prime cousins, that we are biologically inclined to harm each other. And yes, we do philosophy, but how does it follow that there is any more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not? I don't see the logical connection - apart from mere assertion.
    When it comes to competing for resources or mates it goes a lot further than just "our prime cousins." Just look at male deer using their antlers as weapons to compete for access to mates. Likewise Bighorn sheep butting heads or giraffes "necking"


    To make it clear I don't mean the old nickname for kissing or making out
    They can get quite vicious with knockout blows not unheard of


    And not just mammals either. Ants are quite well known for going to war with other ants.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  6. #176
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,604
    Amen (Given)
    2283
    Amen (Received)
    1586
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And it is a fact, like our prime cousins, that we are biologically inclined to harm each other. And yes, we do philosophy, but how does it follow that there is any more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not? I don't see the logical connection - apart from mere assertion.
    Yes we are biologically inclined to harm each other; we are also biologically inclined to maintain a cohesive society. It’s a survival mechanism for any social species. Such cohesive instincts are found in all social communities including chimps, whereby empathy, and reciprocity are important. This suggests that these instincts are deep in our brain biology and did not arise just because of moral reasoning or religion.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #177
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Bernardino, Calif.
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,419
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    so, yes, my argument does include a reference to an external source. What of it?
    Just making sure we're on the same page. It's frustrating when I respond to something and then my interlocutor says “That was not my argument.”

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC
    If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed.
    This objection is either irrelevant or question-begging. It is not necessary for any moral principle to be objectively true in order to be rationally defensible. Craig obviously believes that it does, but until he proves it, his argument in effect assumes its conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC
    After all, what is so special about human beings?
    Who says they are special? This is a straw man.

    If we are going to apply moral standards to ourselves and not to other animals, then we need only identify some characteristic that makes us relevantly different. While it is true that some people are inclined to suppose that whatever makes them different must also make them special, that is an inclination we should all be trying hard to resist.

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC
    They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.
    I reject Craig’s apparent assumption that the only important consequences are eternal consequences.

  8. #178
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,175
    Amen (Given)
    3966
    Amen (Received)
    19348
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    If this is the best answer you can give, I think you are doing pretty bad. But if you have anything of substance to provide instead of argument by weblink, pictures and whatever feel free.
    It's just that it is all you do. You go around heckling other members, and very rarely make any substantive points of your own. And you never heckle JimL or Tassman, Roy, Starlight or other liberal members when they do the same thing as you complain about on MM or me. As a result, we tend to ignore you like a gnat buzzing around our heads. Once in a while we may point out what a twit you are. But mostly just ignore.

  9. #179
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,581
    Amen (Given)
    1237
    Amen (Received)
    4340
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes we are biologically inclined to harm each other; we are also biologically inclined to maintain a cohesive society. It’s a survival mechanism for any social species. Such cohesive instincts are found in all social communities including chimps, whereby empathy, and reciprocity are important. This suggests that these instincts are deep in our brain biology and did not arise just because of moral reasoning or religion.
    So isn't harming or killing each other, or strong dominating the weak also survival mechanisms?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  10. #180
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,208
    Amen (Given)
    4982
    Amen (Received)
    4546
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckles View Post
    The first sentence says: "If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed."

    I could be wrong but it seems to me that according to you the following sentences serve as premises that necessarily lead to this conclusion. The sentences say: "After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time."

    It is rather unclear to me how the fact that we are "doomed" to perish in and of itself should serve as a premise for there to be no morality unless you already presuppose that some God must provide justice in eternity. A "justice" that for many Christians includes etarnal torture and pain for those who followed other religions or had no religions but lived peaceful lives, were friendly and loving and so on. To hell with them if they did not believe in Christ, seems to be the idea.

    I also cannot help but note the fact the expression of "accidental by-products of nature" is a rather narrow minded understanding of what a human being ultimately is. It should not be necessary to remind anyone about it but human beings are in fact reflecting. They have a mind, a conscience, feelings, reason and the potential to love each other. To think of human beings as a "thing" or something that just "is" or is some sort of "accidental by-product" is extremely narrow minded with regard to the existential perspectives of lives that we are all perfectly aware of as human beings. As persons capable af acting, reflecting and having knowledge of ourselves there is no way in which we simply "are". Or if we "are" in any way we "are" aware of ourselves as individuals capable of shaping and changing ourselves. We are not just following the built in software or following instinct. We are agents, reflective persons with a mind. To the regard reflecting human beings or their mind as an "accidental by product" is to presuppose an understanding of reality that denies the reality of the human mind (whatever its metaphysical status may be).

    The line you asked us to see if we could get "beyond" is only a statement. The statement seems to indicate a conclusion. The premises provided for the conclusion show a very narrow minded understanding of reality and the human condition. It neglects more than 2000 years of history that provides different aspects, theories and ideas into why human beings are so special. To think you can write that of with a claim of "accidental by-product" is narrow minded to say the least. So, that was "your argument".

    Now, don't support your argument by weblink but provide us with knowledge of what else he may have to say in favour of his case because what you have provided so far does nothing to prove the conclusion. For those who have knowledge on the history of philosphy it does not even do anything to strengthen the case. At best it does something to strengthen the idea that he presupposes his conclusions and follows a narrow minded aproach.

    Btw: Note the biased language used to describe the topic discusses: We are told about "the herd morality" and not the morality follow by reflecting persons, rational beings and the like. By using such language the writer demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of the theories provided on this area and is basically creating a straw man.
    I'm impressed to see you respond with something more substantive than your usual impotent one-liners, so I applaud you for that. Unfortunately, despite your many words, you are leaning heavily on the classic "is-ought" fallacy. If you don't believe me then try connecting the dots from "It is a fact that humans have evolved with the ability to feel compassion" to "Therefore, we ought to be compassionate." Going further, consider the fact that humans have evolved to feel a wide range of emotions including contempt and wrath, so if atheism is true, why ought we not be contemptible and wrathful?

    Where most people get tripped up in this particular discussion is that they really don't understand the meaning of "ought", so make sure you have a good handle on that before responding.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •