If God asks....

[Skavau]

For an anti-theist, you sure do talk about God a lot!

That's not surprising. I'm not sure why you'd think it might be. I mean, firstly this is a Christian forum and secondly people opposed to ideas always talk about them more than they would if they were apathetic.

In fact, you talk about this being you disbelieve in and despise more than a lot of people who do believe in His existence.

The irony is staggering.

The irony is lost on me. I'm not at all sure what you're getting at.

Why again are you so concerned about this God you believe is nothing more than a superstitious figment of ignorant men's imaginations?

Not only have I answered that (it is a loaded question, the only kind of question you seem to ask) but I'll repeat my last message to you:
Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour.

What you're doing is akin to me sitting around all day dreaming of arguments against the contemptible flying spaghetti monster.

Vanity no doubt.

Not quite. Again, there don't exist a large amount of people telling me to believe in the FSM, recognise his authority over me nor are there a large amount of people who try pass legislation in favour of the FSM. Not so with Christianity.

 

[Elioenai26]

Mendacious little hypocrite, aren't you, 'apologist'?

Say one thing about the atheists here - they don't evade questions anything like as much as you do, even off topic ones.

No, they mainly posit off topic questions.

But be that as it may, to each his own. I am learning much everyday in every way about the atheistic counter-perspective. The efforts by atheists here are reinforcing my assertion all the more that no one can live like a relativist. Moral, or otherwise.

One thing can be said, that we all can agree upon and that is this:

The misgivings expressed here by atheists about Christianity and its teachings are demonstrating that the objectors are not relativists and that "to each his own" really does have limitations.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour.

Well I do thank you for all of the stimulating and fruitful conversation. I have learned much about the anti-theist counter perspective.

I am very grateful and want to wish you well in your search for meaning, purpose, and truth.

Thank you.

 

[Skavau]

Well I do thank you for all of the stimulating and fruitful conversation. I have learned much about the anti-theist counter perspective.

I am very grateful and want to wish you well in your search for meaning, purpose, and truth.

Thank you.

I can only assume the above was sarcasm, since you never even once attempted to involve yourself in a conversation you asked for and instead attempted each time to extend your moral argument spiel from the other thread to here.

 

[Elioenai26]

I can only assume the above was sarcasm, since you never even once attempted to involve yourself in a conversation you asked for and instead attempted each time to extend your moral argument spiel from the other thread to here.

It was heartfelt as well as sincere.

 

[Skavau]

It was heartfelt as well as sincere.

Coming from the guy who believes and approves of the possibility of me being tortured for eternity for my lack of belief, I'll take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Elioenai26]

Coming from the guy who believes and approves of the possibility of me being tortured for eternity for my lack of belief, I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Ok.

 

[Gadarene]

It was heartfelt as well as sincere.

Given that you have strawmanned every step of the way, this is just more lying from you.

And for the record, moral systems such as ours do permit to point out that you're being mendacious and disingenuous. You'd know that if you actually listened, of course. The atheists here frequently field off topic questions while responding to the on-topic material, which is more than can be said for you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Given that you have strawmanned every step of the way, this is just more lying from you.

And for the record, moral systems such as ours do permit to point out that you're being mendacious and disingenuous. You'd know that if you actually listened, of course. The atheists here frequently field off topic questions while responding to the on-topic material, which is more than can be said for you.

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I appreciate your candor, and your stamina.

 

[Gadarene]

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I appreciate your candor, and your stamina.

Still more evasion.

Happy to point out your dishonesty - I would hate for any passing lurker to think you had a point

 

[Elioenai26]

Still more evasion.

Happy to point out your dishonesty - I would hate for any passing lurker to think you had a point

Thank you. I pray you have a great evening.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Thank you. I pray you have a great evening.

So you accept that you are dishonest? Good.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The only difference between homosapiens and fish is that they are a different species.

That is the only difference?

Fish don't have moral systems....at least not that I know of.

So it's not the only difference.

Our concept of morality, under naturalism, is ultimately illusory in nature. In other words, it refers to nothing beyond us, but simply to what is or is not conducive to survival and reproduction. So when atheists ask me if I think God was wrong in doing so and so, what they really mean to say is: was this imaginary God concept doing something that was not conducive to survival and reproduction of homosapiens? When taken this way, the whole question appears to me to be nonsensical. What they should ask rather, is: were the homosapien authors acting in accordance to what their evolved traits led them to write when writing about the imaginary and illusory precepts of their imaginary and illusory God concept. The answer is yes, because they were simply dancing to their DNA.

This is the fifth time I have repeated this point: you are confusing one of the reasons why moral systems might be advantageous with those moral systems themselves.

 

[KCfromNC]

You will have to plead your case to the contemporary evolutionary ethicists who would disagree with what you are saying.

Who are you talking about,specifically? Do they actually exist?

 

[Elioenai26]

Who are you talking about,specifically? Do they actually exist?

1. Edward O. Wilson, known by many to be the "father" of sociobiology states this:

“scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson, 1975: 27).

2. Charles Darwin, of course you know who he is.

The biologization of ethics started with the publication of The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in 1871. In this follow-up to On the Origin of Species, Darwin applied his ideas about evolutionary development to human beings. He argued that humans must have descended from a less highly organized form–in fact, from a “hairy, tailed quadruped … inhabitant of the Old World” (Darwin, 1930: 231). The main difficulty Darwin saw with this explanation is the high standard of moral qualities apparent in humans. Faced with this puzzle, Darwin devoted a large chapter of the book to evolutionary explanations of the moral sense, which he argued must have evolved in two main steps.
First, the root for human morality lies in the social instincts (ibid. 232). Building on this claim by Darwin, today’s biologists would explain this as follows. Sociability is a trait whose phylogenetic origins can be traced back to the time when birds “invented” brooding, hatching, and caring for young offspring. To render beings able to fulfill parental responsibilities required social mechanisms unnecessary at earlier stages of evolutionary history. For example, neither amoebae (which reproduce by division) nor frogs (which leave their tadpole-offspring to fend for themselves) need the social instincts present in birds. At the same time as facilitating the raising of offspring, social instincts counterbalanced innate aggression. It became possible to distinguish between “them” and “us” and aim aggression towards individuals that did not belong to one’s group. This behavior is clearly adaptive in the sense of ensuring the survival of one’s family. Evolutionary Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

3. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), the most fervent defender of evolutionary ethical theory and the creator of the theory of Social Darwinism.

4. Michael Ruse (1995: 250), for instance, argues that morality is a “collective illusion of the genes, bringing us all in…. We need to believe in morality, and so, thanks to our biology, we do believe in morality. There is no foundation “out there” beyond human nature.”

5. Frans De Waal asserts, "In the words of Edward Wilson, biology holds us "on a leash" and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well the life fits human predispositions". [9] *Wikipedia*

6. Thomas Huxley allows that ethical sentiments have evolved but denies that this provides a basis for morality (Evolution and Ethics,1893) *Wikipedia*

These are a few that I could find by doing an elementary google search.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

1. Edward O. Wilson, known by many to be the "father" of sociobiology states this:

“scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson, 1975: 27).

2. Charles Darwin, of course you know who he is.

The biologization of ethics started with the publication of The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in 1871. In this follow-up to On the Origin of Species, Darwin applied his ideas about evolutionary development to human beings. He argued that humans must have descended from a less highly organized form–in fact, from a “hairy, tailed quadruped … inhabitant of the Old World” (Darwin, 1930: 231). The main difficulty Darwin saw with this explanation is the high standard of moral qualities apparent in humans. Faced with this puzzle, Darwin devoted a large chapter of the book to evolutionary explanations of the moral sense, which he argued must have evolved in two main steps.
First, the root for human morality lies in the social instincts (ibid. 232). Building on this claim by Darwin, today’s biologists would explain this as follows. Sociability is a trait whose phylogenetic origins can be traced back to the time when birds “invented” brooding, hatching, and caring for young offspring. To render beings able to fulfill parental responsibilities required social mechanisms unnecessary at earlier stages of evolutionary history. For example, neither amoebae (which reproduce by division) nor frogs (which leave their tadpole-offspring to fend for themselves) need the social instincts present in birds. At the same time as facilitating the raising of offspring, social instincts counterbalanced innate aggression. It became possible to distinguish between “them” and “us” and aim aggression towards individuals that did not belong to one’s group. This behavior is clearly adaptive in the sense of ensuring the survival of one’s family. Evolutionary Ethics[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

3. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), the most fervent defender of evolutionary ethical theory and the creator of the theory of Social Darwinism.

4. Michael Ruse (1995: 250), for instance, argues that morality is a “collective illusion of the genes, bringing us all in…. We need to believe in morality, and so, thanks to our biology, we do believe in morality. There is no foundation “out there” beyond human nature.”

5. Frans De Waal asserts, "In the words of Edward Wilson, biology holds us "on a leash" and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well the life fits human predispositions". [9] *Wikipedia*

6. Thomas Huxley allows that ethical sentiments have evolved but denies that this provides a basis for morality (Evolution and Ethics,1893) *Wikipedia*

These are a few that I could find by doing an elementary google search.

You consider Darwin to be a contemporary bioethicist? Really? And Wilson isn't making any moral claims; just commenting that it's time someone did something about it.

If you're going to be make inaccurate statements, you should google first, rather than trying to find sources to support your errors afterwards.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you're going to be make inaccurate statements, you should google first, rather than trying to find sources to support your errors afterwards.

Take the time to research the names in the following list. Most are contemporary, those that are not, were pioneers in the evolutionary ethics field.

Joseph Daleiden
Tim Dean
David Wilson
Christopher Boehm
George Williams
Richard Dawkins
Richard Alexander
Larry Arnhart
Michael Ruse
Charles Darwin
Herbert Spencer
Sam Harris

Evolutionary Theory and Psychology

The link above provides some articles about the current contemporary trends in science and psychology regarding Darwininan Evolution's role in said fields.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Take the time to research the names in the following list. Most are contemporary, those that are not, were pioneers in the evolutionary ethics field.

Joseph Daleiden
Tim Dean
David Wilson
Christopher Boehm
George Williams
Richard Dawkins
Richard Alexander
Larry Arnhart
Michael Ruse
Charles Darwin
Herbert Spencer
Sam Harris

Evolutionary Theory and Psychology

The link above provides some articles about the current contemporary trends in science and psychology regarding Darwininan Evolution's role in said fields.

What's your point? Some people have pointed out that certain behaviors (reciprocal altruism, for example) and biologically derived; that certain species exhibit higher-order behaviors (monogamy, tending for the young, personal life sacrifice) that also appear to be biologically derived. In fact, these are all successful strategies for evolutionary survival.

Some scientists disagree.

Nothing establishes the existence of objective morality, and indeed, the folks you listed would probably argue against objective morality.

 

[Elioenai26]

What's your point? Some people have pointed out that certain behaviors (reciprocal altruism, for example) and biologically derived; that certain species exhibit higher-order behaviors (monogamy, tending for the young, personal life sacrifice) that also appear to be biologically derived. In fact, these are all successful strategies for evolutionary survival.

Some scientists disagree.

Nothing establishes the existence of objective morality, and indeed, the folks you listed would probably argue against objective morality.

My point is that you intercepted a post that was directed at KCfromNC. He wanted to know if anyone actually existed that dealt in evolution as it is related to psychology and ethics. I supplied some names to prove that yes, there are some who deal with such matters and see them as being related in some way.

Thats all.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Well I'd say no without hesitation concerning the hypothetical in the op.

I read all the posts with an increasing level of interest, so I decided to do a little hijacking! You were not getting the answer you sought anyway, so please do not hold the hijacking against me for too long.

First of all, this is all purely hypothetical, and we can all agree to that.

I find it difficult to accept your response. This hypo resolves anyone's doubt about the existence of Christianity's God. It is a fact that God exists, and it is a fact that He has decided to alter His plan of Grace. He is once again in the business of killing people. If you did not accept God once you acknowledged meeting Him, I would have to question more than your moral fabric.


If you had originally made your hypothetical to indicate that God asked us to kill someone rather than commanded it be done, I would agree with your response. I would likely reply (very kindly) that I would prefer not to...just like Bartleby.


Of course, I am not calling you a liar or even saying that you would not disobey God. There have been those who disobeyed God after having met Him personally, and I always have, still do, and likely always will wonder how they could have made that decision. If the Creator of All tells me to do something (keep in mind that I am still in hypothetical mode and I KNOW that He told me), it is a good bet that I am going to do it.