"Evolution say rape not bad"

[stevevw]

I have nothing to say about people I do not know, but I hope I can offer something to the "tangents."


I see morality as a set of rules and behaviors practiced to show other humans that we value them. They are human, therefore they are worthy of respect, therefore we need a way to show our respect to them. Morality (don't kill, don't covet, don't steal, don't step on toes, etc.) is how we express this sense for inherent value.

So, from this view, all morality, from every culture, serves the same purpose: to express how valuable other people are to us. The moral expression differs, sure, but not the intent.

So there is your indication of absolutes. All morality exists because human beings value each other inherently, and we need a way to express that each one is valuable (important, worthy of respect, etc.).

-Pie

This is true and it fits well with the one commandment that covers all the laws, to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Galatians 5:14, For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[civilwarbuff]

But you know what? I don't think there is an ultimate judge, and I'm still going to strive to be the best human being I can be. Because I hold to the moral standard that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause harm to others, and I realize that by doing so, I hurt myself. It doesn't take a god for my conscious to torture me over a lie I told literally 15 years ago and I would appreciate it if you cut it out, brain, this is really starting to get annoying, I apologized ages ago and it didn't even hurt anyone other than me.

So at some future time, you and Hitler and Stalin and Mao can all sit around a table drinking a glass of wine while they regale you with stories of the millions they have killed and made suffer and your thoughts about that would be what...."To sit in the company of such..."? I will take the ultimate judge any day rather than be in such company.

 

[seashale76]

Blind post here. I've only read the OP and the posted article with it.

“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.”

non sequitur

: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

1 :an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

Latin, it does not follow
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur

 

[Eudaimonist]

You need to learn to read a bit better Mark. The statement was we should not follow NATURE otherwise that is the kind of behaviour we would have. They never said human nature.

And the distinction is?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheDag]

Yes it is, in the sense that it relates to the Latin scio: sciare. I thought I had made that clear.

It is not a scien e in the same sense that biology or any other sciences. Scientists generally would reject philosophy as a science as well.

 

[TheDag]

And the distinction is?

human nature refers specifically to humans.

 

[Eudaimonist]

human nature refers specifically to humans.

Isn't human nature what is natural to human beings? I would think that looking to nature means looking to human nature, but it seems that you have some other interpretation in mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheDag]

Isn't human nature what is natural to human beings? I would think that looking to nature means looking to human nature, but it seems that you have some other interpretation in mind.

No nature refers to more than just human nature. In the context of the conversation it was very clear the poster was talking about nature in general which includes animals etc. Key is all in the context.
So sure human nature is what is natural to human beings but what you still fail to grasp for some reason is that Open Heart never mentioned human nature. You were the one to first mention it as a counter argument.
Of course human nature varies depending on where you live and grow up. So it could be argued that it is not what is natural to humans anyway but more nurture.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No nature refers to more than just human nature. In the context of the conversation it was very clear the poster was talking about nature in general which includes animals etc. Key is all in the context.

Animal natures vary quite a bit when it comes to mating. Gerbils might mate like gerbils, but wolves don't. I don't see how that is helpful.

So sure human nature is what is natural to human beings but what you still fail to grasp for some reason is that Open Heart never mentioned human nature. You were the one to first mention it as a counter argument.

Then I don't have a clue about what she means by "nature". Which animal species? Gerbils only? Or what?

All I am saying here is that if a particular animal species isn't specified, I have to assume that nature means human nature, since human beings do not exist outside of nature. Perhaps some people really do view human beings as outside of nature, but that is foreign to my worldview.

Of course human nature varies depending on where you live and grow up.

No, it depends only on being biologically human. Yes, your individual nature might depend on where you grow up, because then you factor in nurture and choice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheDag]

Animal natures vary quite a bit when it comes to mating. Gerbils might mate like gerbils, but wolves don't. I don't see how that is helpful.

See that was their point!

Then I don't have a clue about what she means by "nature". Which animal species? Gerbils only? Or what?

Well if you are going to assume a specific animal then surely you would be better off assuming the only animal that was mentioned by name which was hamsters. Of course the problem is that your limiting yourself very much to a very specific definition of nature when it has multiple meanings including much more general ones. Nature can mean all animals and human beings are classified as a type of animal.

All I am saying here is that if a particular animal species isn't specified, I have to assume that nature means human nature, since human beings do not exist outside of nature. Perhaps some people really do view human beings as outside of nature, but that is foreign to my worldview.

No you do not have to assume anything. You can ask! Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Asking a simple question? Yet I managed to get the meaning with the same information

No, it depends only on being biologically human. Yes, your individual nature might depend on where you grow up, because then you factor in nurture and choice.

Yes a far better way of phrasing it than how I put it. Mainly my point being people argue we know right and wrong and don't need anything to tell us that yet we have laws and those laws vary from one location to another. If individual nature makes such a big difference why do people carry on about human nature so much? Why does nobody seem to call them out on it when they use wrong terms? Note this includes scientists who publish peer reviewed papers who use the term human nature instead of individual nature. Human nature makes such a small amount of difference then why would you assume people mean that when they just say nature? Makes no sense. Certainly human nature does not tell us incest (no matter which definition you use) is wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe in fairness. Since many non-christians decide that since christians don't agree on everything they can decide what we believe. So to be fair since some say evolution does more than that I have decided it is reasonable for me to decide what evolution does and does not say.

I'm afraid you lost me in there. I don't really get what your point is.

I can only repeat what I said: evolution is a scientific theory of biology. It explains the diversity of life, the mechanisms that produced it. That's it.

No that would be double standards

Here's your mistake: you assume that there is something like an "atheist" standard. There isn't. Atheism isn't anything. Atheism is a single stance on a single issue. There are no claims, doctrines, worldviews or whatever attached to atheism in any way whatsoever.

Atheism, rather, excludes certain specific worldviews. In general, these would include all worldviews that require supernatural ingredients.

Whereas a religious worldview, such as theism is the opposite: it IS a worldview (and implicitly excludes all other worldviews).

In short, atheism only tells you what I do NOT believe. It doesn't tell you anything about what I DO believe.

unless you are happy to accept religion simply because people said so.

I don't need religion to be a humanist. I don't need religion to have empathy. I don't need religion to understand the difference between peace and war, stability and chaos. And I don't need religion to prefer peace and stability.

Yes that is correct and those morals include things like my partner doesn't want sex as they have kids to look after so I will kill the kids & eat them then force myself on her. That is nature.

You're not making any sense.

Or perhaps we can take a non meat eating animal and know that they may take a kid rip it to pieces and eat it and share it with the rest of the group. Did I mention they aren't meat eaters? These are an example of natural morals. Oh and they won't be kicked out for this behaviour.

I don't feel like you are being intellectually honest. You are not addressing the actual point. Instead, you seem to be fabricating a strawman.

I never said that wolves, chimps, etc would have the same moral compass as us. Nore would I expect it.

The point I made was that social species tend to have general "rules of conduct". Because they depend on cooperation and cooperation necessarily requires the ability to work together. The only way that can take place is with a couple of groundrules.

I argue that morality is, in essence, nothing more or less then a more complex form of such a collection of groundrules. A collection that exists by necessity, to be able to live together, cooperate - and prosper.

If you wish to address that point, great. If not, nice talking to you.

 

[JGG]

I believe in fairness. Since many non-christians decide that since christians don't agree on everything they can decide what we believe. So to be fair since some say evolution does more than that I have decided it is reasonable for me to decide what evolution does and does not say.


No that would be double standards unless you are happy to accept religion simply because people said so.


Yes that is correct and those morals include things like my partner doesn't want sex as they have kids to look after so I will kill the kids & eat them then force myself on her. That is nature. Or perhaps we can take a non meat eating animal and know that they may take a kid rip it to pieces and eat it and share it with the rest of the group. Did I mention they aren't meat eaters? These are an example of natural morals. Oh and they won't be kicked out for this behaviour.

I have never before used the acronym ROTFL to describe my physical reaction to a post. I will not today because I think it's stupid. However, it does come very close to describing my physical reaction to this post.

 

[TheDag]

I have never before used the acronym ROTFL to describe my physical reaction to a post. I will not today because I think it's stupid. However, it does come very close to describing my physical reaction to this post.

ok I'm not going to really do that but must admit that I find it interesting when athiests in particular say they will decide what christians believe but insist they are the ones best placed to decide what non-christians believe as well. Since the thread seemed to be heading in a weird direction I decided to throw in a contribution. Glad I could give you a laugh!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Blind post here. I've only read the OP and the posted article with it.

“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.”

non sequitur

: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

1 :an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

Latin, it does not follow
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur

Your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur.

Amorality does follow evolution. Evolution may intimate that some behaviors are non-productive, inconvenient, or even harmful, but moral or immoral?......no. Even judges rarely use 'moral/immoral' terms when sentencing offenders.

 

[seashale76]

Your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur.

Amorality does follow evolution. Evolution may intimate that some behaviors are non-productive, inconvenient, or even harmful, but moral or immoral?......no. Even judges rarely use 'moral/immoral' terms when sentencing offenders.

It's not my non sequitur, it's Hovind's. I was quoting him directly from the article in the OP. The fact that I need to explain this is a little disturbing.

 

[JGG]

ok I'm not going to really do that but must admit that I find it interesting when athiests in particular say they will decide what christians believe but insist they are the ones best placed to decide what non-christians believe as well.

I find it interesting when Christians say they will decide what True Christians believe and then insist they are the ones best placed to decide what atheists in particular believe as well.

 

[TheDag]

I find it interesting when Christians say they will decide what True Christians believe and then insist they are the ones best placed to decide what atheists in particular believe as well.

In my experience athiests are far worse. See the bible does give guidelines for telling. Sure they aren't perfect because that requires being able to determine a persons motives. However that is no justification for athiests then saying well I will determine what christian beliefs are. If I had a dollar for everytime I'd seen that on this website alone I would be rich. Not a millionaire but certainly a lot of money. Enough then to be able to buy some property for the single parents I know who live close by in dumps like me to be able to have a decent place. One with a yeard in the middle for everyones kids to play in. Although I know which ones would not realise not everyone likes to play rough. Very scary babysitting some of those kids. After all wouldn't be a great way to interupt a night out. Hi its the babysitter I'm at emergency department with your kids!

Anyway thats just a out of reach dream!

 

[JGG]

In my experience athiests are far worse. See the bible does give guidelines for telling.

The Bible gives guidelines for telling you what to tell me I believe?

Sure they aren't perfect because that requires being able to determine a persons motives.

No, it doesn't. Would you say it's fair to say that whatever you tell me True Christians believe, that that is what Christians believe?

However that is no justification for athiests then saying well I will determine what christian beliefs are.

But you are justified in telling other Christians what their beliefs are, and telling me what my beliefs are? Aren't you special!

 

[TheDag]

The Bible gives guidelines for telling you what to tell me I believe?

I can see how reading what I wrote could lead one to that conclusion although there was certainly enough in the context that should give one reason to pause and wonder what was meant. No I was saying the bible gives guidelines as to what christians are to believe. It is actually a rather small list when you get down to essentials. Non-essentials don't really matter and christians are free to disagree on them (yep that is found in the bible!)

No, it doesn't. Would you say it's fair to say that whatever you tell me True Christians believe, that that is what Christians believe?

This is more a reference to the claim that if a person acts a certain way that is their belief. Christianity doesn't claim believers are perfect so they may not always act in accordance with their beliefs. That however does not change those beliefs. Also part of christian beliefs is motives. If you do something simply so you get a reward then that is not considered good in christianity. You may get a reward and acknowledgment here on earth and there is nothing wrong with that but it comes down to what was your aim in doing what you did. Also known as motive.

But you are justified in telling other Christians what their beliefs are, and telling me what my beliefs are? Aren't you special!

perhaps instead of sarcasm you could have demonstrated what a decent person you are by asking for clarification.

 

[JGG]

I can see how reading what I wrote could lead one to that conclusion although there was certainly enough in the context that should give one reason to pause and wonder what was meant. No I was saying the bible gives guidelines as to what christians are to believe. It is actually a rather small list when you get down to essentials. Non-essentials don't really matter and christians are free to disagree on them (yep that is found in the bible!)

The Bible says "Just believe whatever you want, it doesn't really matter."? Do you think I'd find a Christian who disagrees with that? Are their beliefs wrong? Perhaps you'd like to give us an example of a common biblical issue that Christians are allowed to disagree on?

This is more a reference to the claim that if a person acts a certain way that is their belief. Christianity doesn't claim believers are perfect so they may not always act in accordance with their beliefs. That however does not change those beliefs. Also part of christian beliefs is motives. If you do something simply so you get a reward then that is not considered good in christianity. You may get a reward and acknowledgment here on earth and there is nothing wrong with that but it comes down to what was your aim in doing what you did. Also known as motive.

In both cases, this does not change the fact that the "No True Christian" fallacy is thrown around in here like a Frisbee. If you're telling us who is not a Christian, you are certainly defining the beliefs of Christians.

perhaps instead of sarcasm you could have demonstrated what a decent person you are by asking for clarification.

After your posts about myself and other atheists, I was not about to do that! I am a decent person to those who might treat me like a decent person. I will respect those who treat me with respect. You are neither such person. Sarcasm is too much fun to not use when someone asks for it.

And yet, I was not sarcastic. What makes you so special that you get to decide the beliefs of Christians and non-Christians?