"Evolution say rape not bad"

[Cuddles333]

“If evolution is true, then there is no absolute right and wrong,” Hovind said. “If evolution is true Josh should not have admitted his faults over a decade ago because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter. If evolution is true there is no ultimate Judge on the bench who will hold every man, woman, and child responsible for their actions. And if evolution is true you will not give an account for every idle word you speak.”


NATURAL Evolution does mean what Hovind said. THEISTIC Evolution does teach that Josh should have repented immediately after the incident.

I think that a lot of people take for granted the knowledge we all have concerning what is moral and what is not. Before the Apostles and disciples, and much later, the printing of the New Testament, all humanity had to go on was our innate awareness. This was what the Apostle Paul was referring to in Romans 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the 10 Commandments, do by nature the things the things contained in the Commandments, these people having not the Commandments, are a law unto themselves:" Moral/spiritual darkness back then is difficult for us to understand today. We are so spoiled. Some skeptics try to make the case that since a few things are found universally....that they then must be Absolutes. This is not true. God must exist in order for any morals to be Absolute.

 

[TheDag]

I didn't say that these statements were "morally correct". They were specific statements directed at the things I quoted right before them.

Yes I am aware of that. However your response in context of the conversation makes those implications. Otherwise your response was just meaningless words that did not address the point. How are we responsible to society for our actions? You can't talk about legal and illegal as in law of particular countries because that was not the context of the conversation. It was talking about a ultimate judge not one who you only see if you happen to get caught and prosecuted.

In relation to ultimate judge (in my case the christian God) then yes there is a belief that his morals are correct. So no I can't offer anything proving conclusively that they are correct. I do acknowledge people can have morals without having any faith in anything. I may or may not agree with them. For example one I disagreed with years ago was that one should not swear because there was a lady present. To me you either swear or you don't. All the same my older co-workers views were still morals just not ones I agree with.

I also reject the group consensus morals model because it really is not a group consensus. It is whoever has influence to get their view put forward and often is a very small group that makes rules for society not anything resembling group consensus.

 

[TheDag]

Er, so which part of the John 3:16 and Matthew 7:7 I didn't understand?

Forgiveness is not unconditional. It is not simply a matter of saying please forgive me and it happening. So will you stop talking like you don't this now since this is not the first time this has been explained to you.

 

[TheDag]

I'm afraid the facts are not found in what you accept. They are plainly obvious. Human beings have, throughout the course of our history, formed moral codes and subsequently altered or modified them, to suit the prevailing societal expectations. This isn't a matter for debate - it's a demonstrable fact.

But that doesn't make it right. People believed blacks were inferior and did not deserve to have a say. People believed women didn't really need much of an education. Just enough to look after the home. Doesn't make it right. Other than because you say so.

That you would wish to overlay this with an supported claim that a supernatural being is involved is entirely your problem.

I was addressing a question. Obviously I understand that not everyone believes.

You seem a little incoherent - are you well? I didn't argue that the majority could never be wrong about something - clearly, the majority once used to think the sun orbited the earth. What I said, fairly clearly, is that morality is determined by group consensus. There is a difference there.

So in other words you decided to say a heap of stuff without answering the question. Next time answer the question or don't respond to it. You say morality is determined by group consensus yet say that just because the majority believe something does not make it right. You are saying because the majority say so it is right while the majority can be wrong. Sorry but that is contradiction.

But their behaviour may. And that's the measure of morality. How one behaves. Whether or not that behaviour is considered 'good'.

People tend to mostly behave in accordance with their beliefs. In any case it is a moot point because people don't automatically change their beliefs simply based on where they move to.

When you say that the 'maker' sets the rules, it is you who have determined the breadth of the 'story'. I merely pointed out your error.

But as I said I did not mention the whole story. It is your assumption that it was the whole story that is the problem.

 

[TheDag]

That's all you get buddy. How about because the law says so?

So nobody should have ever campaigned for gay marriage to be made legal because the law says it wasn't. Or perhaps blacks should never have been given the vote because the law said so! Obviously if a law is unjust it should be changed. People accept that. Well most do! So simply because the law says so is not good enough for saying what is right and wrong.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

So nobody should have ever campaigned for gay marriage to be made legal because the law says it wasn't. Or perhaps blacks should never have been given the vote because the law said so! Obviously if a law is unjust it should be changed. People accept that. Well most do! So simply because the law says so is not good enough for saying what is right and wrong.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Oh I see you're one of those people who believe in absolutism. Those laws were mended because the previous status quo was considered wrong. So yea.

 

[SteveB28]

But that doesn't make it right. People believed blacks were inferior and did not deserve to have a say. People believed women didn't really need much of an education. Just enough to look after the home. Doesn't make it right. Other than because you say so.


I was addressing a question. Obviously I understand that not everyone believes.


So in other words you decided to say a heap of stuff without answering the question. Next time answer the question or don't respond to it. You say morality is determined by group consensus yet say that just because the majority believe something does not make it right. You are saying because the majority say so it is right while the majority can be wrong. Sorry but that is contradiction.


People tend to mostly behave in accordance with their beliefs. In any case it is a moot point because people don't automatically change their beliefs simply based on where they move to.


But as I said I did not mention the whole story. It is your assumption that it was the whole story that is the problem.

"Right" is determined by the people to whom it applies. This has always been the case. It is the reason why moral codes evolve. Yes, slavery was once considered acceptable behaviour and was promoted, not least by the holy book you view in such a good light. It is now considered to be wrong. The morality surrounding it has changed - because people's views about it have changed and NOT in response to some overarching moral authority.

When my son was younger, itwas considered 'right' within the majority of the Australian community to conscript young men like him to serve in the armed forces during the Vietnam conflict. Within just a few years, as people developed a greater awareness, a majority then considered it wrong. Behaviours changed as a result, and it is highly unlikely that an Australian government would ever resort to enforced service again. The moral landscape has changed.

Because people's views change.

 

[EatingPie]

"Right" is determined by the people to whom it applies. This has always been the case.

Hi again.

I do want to point out that this is a logical fallacy. Appeal to to Tradition ("...always been the case").

I believe it's also demonstrably false. Nazi Germany evolved their morals, and murdered millions of people. That's the application of their morality. And those murdered millions had no say in the matter.

Yes, slavery was once considered acceptable behaviour and was promoted, not least by the holy book you view in such a good light. It is now considered to be wrong. The morality surrounding it has changed - because people's views about it have changed and NOT in response to some overarching moral authority.

I think it's worth remembering that it has not changed everywhere.

Consider those cultures which still practice slavery. In some such countries, slavery's actually illegal, but the laws are not enforced because the culture has decided slavery is okay. So how can we say it's wrong? "Right is determined by the people to whom it applies." The cultures of India, Pakistan, and some other nations have determined it's right, therefore...

Taking this one step further... If you accept that right is determined by those to whom it applies, why would you have issue with what the Bible says about slavery?

-Pie

Edit: decided to change last paragraph.

 

[EatingPie]

Er, so which part of the John 3:16 and Matthew 7:7 I didn't understand?

Forgiveness is not unconditional. It is not simply a matter of saying please forgive me and it happening. So will you stop talking like you don't this now since this is not the first time this has been explained to you.

Just a quick thanks! I'm new and this saved me some time... and saved me from making a fool of myself with some silly, snarky reply like "I guess you didn't understand the 'For God so loved the world' part."

Oh. Uhhh... Ooops!

-Pie

 

[SteveB28]

Hi again.

I do want to point out that this is a logical fallacy. Appeal to to Tradition ("...always been the case").

And you would be incorrect. That is not an example of a logical fallacy. I did not use that statement as some form of justification - it was merely an observation. What people consider to be "right" or good, has always been determined by those people.

I believe it's also demonstrably false. Nazi Germany evolved their morals, and murdered millions of people. That's the application of their morality. And those murdered millions had no say in the matter.

Again, you would be in error. That moral stance of persecuting the Jews was considered to be right by the people to whom the morality applies - ie, the Nazis.

I it's worth remembering that it has not changed everywhere.

Nevertheless, in those communities where it IS now considered 'wrong', slavery has been abolished. It is considered an immoral behaviour.

Consider those cultures which still practice slavery. In some such countries, slavery's actually illegal, but the laws are not enforced because the culture has decided slavery is okay. So how can we say it's wrong? "Right is determined by the people to whom it applies." The cultures of India, Pakistan, and some other nations have determined it's right, therefore...

In the same way that some countries consider the death penalty to be immoral, whereas others are comfortable with it. Moral codes are not universal, nor immutable.

Taking this one step further... If you accept that right is determined by those to whom it applies, why would you have issue with what the Bible says about slavery?

I wouldn't, except for one very significant factor. If that book of fables were simply that, there would be no issue. We would dismiss the barbarity of those days as simply a 'sign of the times'. But you lot go much further than that. You claim that those books reveal the moral authority of your God - a morality that is universal and timeless! You lot claim that you take from those stories your guidance in how to behave TODAY!

And I take great issue with that!

 

[Eudaimonist]

“If evolution is true, then there is no absolute right and wrong,” Hovind said. “If evolution is true Josh should not have admitted his faults over a decade ago because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter. If evolution is true there is no ultimate Judge on the bench who will hold every man, woman, and child responsible for their actions. And if evolution is true you will not give an account for every idle word you speak.”

The non-existence of a "Judge" does not mean that one doesn't in fact have character flaws. Immorality doesn't exist because there is someone to make a judgment, but because there is something flawed in a person's character that can in principle be judged. Likewise, the Moon doesn't disappear from existence because everyone on Earth doesn't happen to look at the sky.

As for responsibility, I once had a teacher say something I still regard as wise. He said: "If you cheat on an examination, you only cheat yourself out of an education".

Likewise, if you cheat at life by cutting moral corners, you only cheat yourself out of a life. You will live a stunted existence, not the best life that you can. No "ultimate Judge" is necessary here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[EatingPie]

Apologies for my absence. The weekend called.

And you would be incorrect. That is not an example of a logical fallacy. I did not use that statement as some form of justification - it was merely an observation. What people consider to be "right" or good, has always been determined by those people.

Ah, well, regardless of your intended use, your premise is an "Appeal to Tradition" and remains a logical fallacy. And thus an untenable argument. Look, you have no way of knowing whether "that's the way it's always been" or not... nor do I.

I also feel compelled to point out that your "observation" is also the premise from which the majority of your post follows, and as a logical fallacy, it tears down the basic foundation for almost everything else you say.

Again, you would be in error. That moral stance of persecuting the Jews was considered to be right by the people to whom the morality applies - ie, the Nazis.

I have to admit I almost didn't cite this example because I anticipated this counter. I had to think it through before I actually posted. The reason I consider it valid example is because it overarchingly deals with Germans. The German culture decided to persecute German Jews. Blame and accusations were German to German. Intra-cultural; the persecuted Jews were a part of the very culture which attacked them.

So, at this point, I'm convinced that not only is your initial premise logically fallacious, this example proves it untrue anyway.

Nevertheless, in those communities where it IS now considered 'wrong', slavery has been abolished. It is considered an immoral behaviour.

In the same way that some countries consider the death penalty to be immoral, whereas others are comfortable with it. Moral codes are not universal, nor immutable.

Yes! Exactly! Cultures decide for themselves what is moral!

And the lack of universality means that neither you, nor me, nor Nuremberg, can judge the cultures that choose to invoke slavery, or to murder a class of citizens wholesale, or abuse women and children.... It's their cultural morals, not ours, so we have no stand to judge.

I wouldn't, except for one very significant factor. If that book of fables were simply that, there would be no issue. We would dismiss the barbarity of those days as simply a 'sign of the times'. But you lot go much further than that. You claim that those books reveal the moral authority of your God - a morality that is universal and timeless! You lot claim that you take from those stories your guidance in how to behave TODAY!

Well, you could try to point out that the claim is fallacious if you like. I still wonder... so what if we behave like that? It's how culture works. We come to some internal decision, and BOOM! Morals! I mean, that is how slavery was abolished and how the death penalty has been eliminated in a variety of countries.

And I take great issue with that!

Yes, my facetiousness aside, I thought that might be the case. And I can understand totally. Any change in morality means some group gets alienated when they don't agree with that change. In your favor, I doubt we're headed anywhere near a more Bible-based morality... though I don't claim to predict the future.

-Pie

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what isn't true about this statement?

“If evolution is true, then there is no absolute right and wrong,” Hovind said. “If evolution is true Josh should not have admitted his faults over a decade ago because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter. If evolution is true there is no ultimate Judge on the bench who will hold every man, woman, and child responsible for their actions. And if evolution is true you will not give an account for every idle word you speak.”

What is wrong with it?
Where to begin...

I'll just say this: evolution is a theory of biology which explains the diversity of life.

It has nothing to say on how to organize a society.

The statement is as ridiculous as saying that if gravity is true, then using airplanes to fly is morally wrong.

It's ridiculous.

The statement has only 1 goal: to dehumanize those who do not adhere to his fundamentalist, radical, theistic faith based beliefs. And he does so by painting them of as baby-eating, raping psychopaths.

It's a mystery to me how some people can't see right through that silly juvenile game he's playing.

 

[Cute Tink]

How are we responsible to society for our actions? You can't talk about legal and illegal as in law of particular countries because that was not the context of the conversation. It was talking about a ultimate judge not one who you only see if you happen to get caught and prosecuted.

But I can talk about legal and illegal in countries because those laws are established because of largely enough shared morality. That's also how society holds you responsible for your actions.

However, it would seem that "the ultimate judge" that most people have in mind tends to do a lot more forgiving than society does when someone is caught and prosecuted. I see now reason to believe, based on what people who believe in this judge tell me, there is essentially no accountability with this ultimate judge anyway.

I also reject the group consensus morals model because it really is not a group consensus. It is whoever has influence to get their view put forward and often is a very small group that makes rules for society not anything resembling group consensus.

Depending on which country, there are restraints on what people can put forward and enough people who don't share a morality can come forward and change the laws. The chance of a 100% consensus doesn't even seem possible within a community that believes in the same god, let alone in a diverse society. It's based on enough of a consensus combined with some general requirements established by society.

 

[EatingPie]

What is wrong with it?
Where to begin...

I'll just say this: evolution is a theory of biology which explains the diversity of life.

It has nothing to say on how to organize a society.
...
It's [the quote in the original post] ridiculous.

I think I agree -- if I understand correctly -- but it's imperative to make sure you apply the measure fairly. Atheists use evolution as a basis for how society is organized, or how morality has changed. Star Trek thrived on the very premise of moral evolution (and tore the ideal down time and again).

Here's a quote from a fairly prolific atheist, who you might want to give a stiff talking to:

As our society evolved it began to select for intelligence and the ability to command authority. The societies that claimed to know more and could wield their authority over others; survived better and populated.

I would hope it's clear at this point that both sides are responsible for abusing "evolution" as a justification for both society's rise and fall.

The statement has only 1 goal: to dehumanize those who do not adhere to his fundamentalist, radical, theistic faith based beliefs. And he does so by painting them of as baby-eating, raping psychopaths.

It's a mystery to me how some people can't see right through that silly juvenile game he's playing.

Because everybody plays the game? Sad, but I think true.

OTOH, I think part of the "game playing" is unintentional. We use the science of evolution to argue a philosophical point without recognizing the dichotomy. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence of God, but I've heard it propagated as justification for those opposed to the belief in God. We have evolution, we don't need God. (I'm probably not doing this justice, but it's based on what I've heard various times.)

On the other side, Christians attack evolution as leading to a totally meaningless existence. This is what the OP quote leans on, even though it's not stated explicitly. We came about randomly, just as anything else in the universe, therefore we have no more meaning or importance than anything else. So why would killing a person be any different than cutting down a tree or throwing a rock in a pond?

So, again, it's a double-edged sword, and combatants face each other swinging wildly in the hopes that it might connect.

-Pie

 

[Meowzltov]

“If evolution is true, then there is no absolute right and wrong,”

This is baloney. One can believe in both evolution and God.

BTW, it is never a good idea to look to nature for morality, or we would all be having sex with our mothers like hamsters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

BTW, it is never a good idea to look to nature for morality, or we would all be having sex with our mothers like hamsters.

And risk birth defects? Since when does human nature actually support having sex with close relatives? Royal lines give plenty of evidence of how unwise that practice is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Catherineanne]

That 'ship' is like the ark. You will all be gone and it will still be floating.

And what isn't true about this statement?

“If evolution is true, then there is no absolute right and wrong,” Hovind said. “If evolution is true Josh should not have admitted his faults over a decade ago because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter. If evolution is true there is no ultimate Judge on the bench who will hold every man, woman, and child responsible for their actions. And if evolution is true you will not give an account for every idle word you speak.”

If evolution is true then everything about our present human existence is a product of evolution to some degree, including morality.

It is rather bizarre to postulate an alternative universe in which evolution necessarily excludes morality, and then suggest that we are indeed living in such a universe. Morality exists in our existence; therefore this cannot be true.

Humans are social animals, not loners. We live in groups; family groups, village groups and larger groups, and that necessitates a social order. That social order in turn necessitates an awareness of what is appropriate and what is really, really not, and that in turn necessitates a code of behaviour of some kind, and sanctions against those who break the code. Morality is perfectly natural to our cultural and social existence, therefore. It is not an add on; it is a central part of our humanity. Sanctions against rape are part of this central morality.

If you want Biblical proof look at Adam and Eve. When they were found to have sinned they were full of guilt and shame; emotions which are the product of an awareness of right and wrong, and sanctions against it. If mankind were indeed created without morality, then Adam and Eve would have felt no shame. They had to learn this shame, as every young child does, and once learned it could not be unlearned.

QED.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think I agree -- if I understand correctly -- but it's imperative to make sure you apply the measure fairly.

I do. Evolution is a theory of biology. An explanation for the diversity of life.
What would be "unfair" is to apply it to anything but that.

Atheists use evolution as a basis for how society is organized, or how morality has changed.

I'm an atheist and I don't. By that fact alone, this statement is false.

Evolution explains. It doesn't prescribe.
It can explain that we are a social species. It can explain why we tend to form groups/tribes/cities/empires.

But there isn't a single reason why we should model our society or morality (or anything else) according to darwinian principles. I'ld even argue that one can't do that. For the simple reason that evolution is about EXPLAINING, not about prescribing.

Star Trek thrived on the very premise of moral evolution (and tore the ideal down time and again).

Star Trek is a TV show.

Here's a quote from a fairly prolific atheist, who you might want to give a stiff talking to:
I would hope it's clear at this point that both sides are responsible for abusing "evolution" as a justification for both society's rise and fall.

Who's "both" here?

Not that it matters much. Keyword: abuse.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think I kinda like whenever I hear a Christian basically make the argument that if there were no God, they'd pretty much rob you, kill you and sodomize your corpse. Why... There'd be no reason not to! Who could resist?!

Indeed so. We can only be grateful for their faith, and determine never to live next door to them in case they lose it.

: )