Man evolved equal?

[Redemptions]

If God did not grant us all with a soul created in His image, then we are the mere product of random evolution (I'm not saying that evolution did or did not happen by the way). But if evolution did occur AND there is no God who grants us a soul, then there is no sense in saying that we are all equal as people. The thought that random, unethical, cold, and uncaring biochemical chance produced a bunch of beings that are completely equal to each other is absurd.

Discuss

 

[Hetta]

The thought that random, unethical, cold, and uncaring biochemical chance produced a bunch of beings that are completely equal to each other is absurd.

Why is it absurd?

 

[Nithavela]

Is there any point you are trying to make in this gibberish?

Equality is, like every similiar concept, a concept produced only by the human mind. It has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Redemptions]

Is there any point you are trying to make in this gibberish?

Equality is, like every similiar concept, a concept produced only by the human mind. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Is there any point to getting your panties worked up in a bunch over it?

I was raising a point for philosophical discussion. That's what we do on message forums. I'm inquiring into the minds of people who do not believe in a soul yet also believe that we are all equal. What point is there in telling me that it's a concept? Of course it's a concept. And I'm wondering why certain people hold that concept. Of course it has nothing to do with evolution. That was precisely my point....

 

[Nithavela]

We hold this concept because it is the way our society has developed. Other societies don't hold such views of equality with people being worth less because of their gender, the color of their skin or the caste of their parents.

Equality is just something we have developed because it suits our society best, enabling women to develop their talents and use them for the good of all, or something like that.

 

[Redemptions]

We hold this concept because it is the way our society has developed. Other societies don't hold such views of equality with people being worth less because of their gender, the color of their skin or the caste of their parents.

Equality is just something we have developed because it suits our society best, enabling women to develop their talents and use them for the good of all, or something like that.

Yes I agree

Maybe I should have stated it differently.

What my real question is is this...how could one be atheist and still truly believe that we are all equal? Being a theist...one believes that we are all made equal in the image of God. That is a reason for truly believing that we are equal. I don't see that atheists have any REAL reason to believe that we are all equal. They may say that they do in order to benefit society or to appear kind and gentle...but deep down they would have no grounds to believe that we all just accidently evolved into true equals of one another.

As I know there are atheists who truly believe that all people are equal, I am simply wondering how it is that the believe this

 

[Nithavela]

Evidence, mostly. I have never seen anything that makes me believe men and women, or people of different skin colours or whatever are of unequal worth, so I operate under the assumption that they are equal until other evidence arises.

What baffles me far more is that some Christians assume that men and women are equal, when the bible obviously tells that they are not and that the woman is but a mere 'helpmeet' for man, should be silent in church and so on and so forth.

 

[Redemptions]

Evidence, mostly. I have never seen anything that makes me believe men and women, or people of different skin colours or whatever are of unequal worth, so I operate under the assumption that they are equal until other evidence arises.

What baffles me far more is that some Christians assume that men and women are equal, when the bible obviously tells that they are not and that the woman is but a mere 'helpmeet' for man, should be silent in church and so on and so forth.

I think that was just they way that the times were back then. But God does not hold that view. But the Bible does center around a time when women were looked down upon. I believe that to be a reflection of the times and not on God's word. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is focused upon the reformation of our souls, not on the reformation of society. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that having women at the head of Churches probably would have killed the movement in such a society. Something that the Early Church fathers could ill-afford, obviously.

The Bible clearly gives a very high view of women, especially when one looks at their position in the culture of the times. In the ancient world women were considered more property than persons. They had to have total obedience to the will of their husbands, and they could not participate in any governmental or political actions. In ancient Palestine a man could divorce a woman by giving her a hand-written note for an offense a slight as burning the evening meal (for example) and their testimony was not permissible in a court of law.

But God does not hold this view. The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman. The first European convert was a woman. The only followers of Jesus to stand with Him in his crucifixion were women. There were woman in the upper room and anointed with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Jesus was born to an earthly mother, but not an earthly father. Only a woman understood Christ's upcoming death. So women really played a crucial part to Christ's ministry as the men. Remember, a woman's testimony was inadmissible in a court of law, so the incident not only makes the disciples look bad.

 

[Nithavela]

Actually, you might not know this, but women were not seen like that in every part of the ancient world. For example, in ancient sparta, women could vote (if their social class was high enough), own property and were educated in the same fashion as men.

And in ancient persia, their social standing was even more equal. In ancient germania, women also were held in very high esteem, and the list could go on and on and on.

So yeah, it's not like in ancient times, women were universally seen as being property and inferior to men. There were of course places were this was the case, and those cases included all places that were dominated by the abrahamic religions. So there.

There are many cases of women being called inferior in the bible, but not one case where anyone just flat out states 'Hey, women are equal to men'. You would think that there was enough room for that in this huge collection of texts, right? Instead there are only bits and pieces that were only interpreted as evidence for biblical equality after (suprise, suprise) society already viewed women as equal. Society made equality happen, first, then biblical interpretation followed in its footsteps.

 

[Redemptions]

Actually, you might not know this, but women were not seen like that in every part of the ancient world. For example, in ancient sparta, women could vote (if their social class was high enough), own property and were educated in the same fashion as men.

And in ancient persia, their social standing was even more equal. In ancient germania, women also were held in very high esteem, and the list could go on and on and on.

So yeah, it's not like in ancient times, women were universally seen as being property and inferior to men. There were of course places were this was the case, and those cases included all places that were dominated by the abrahamic religions. So there.

There are many cases of women being called inferior in the bible, but not one case where anyone just flat out states 'Hey, women are equal to men'. You would think that there was enough room for that in this huge collection of texts, right?

Yeah I believe the time and place to have been sexist, as the vast majority of ancient (and indeed the majority of modern) cultures are. Jesus was not sexist, so that's all that really matters to me.

You seem a little bitter today there Tiger. Did you get your breakfast this morning?

 

[evoeth]

If God did not grant us all with a soul created in His image, then we are the mere product of random evolution

That is a non-sequitur. That proposition is just not at all true.

God not creating us informs is not at all about what actually happened.

 

[Redemptions]

That is a non-sequitur. That proposition is just not at all true.

God not creating us informs is not at all about what actually happened.

Hi evoeth. Thanks for your reply. Explain a little more if you would.

 

[evoeth]

One method fails does not mean another method must be true unless it has been determined that these are the only two possible methods.

 

[Nithavela]

I get a little bitter when I show someone that those times were not uniformly sexist and the answer of that person is that he believes that they were uniformly sexist.

 

[Redemptions]

One method fails does not mean another method must be true unless it has been determined that these are the only two possible methods.

I'm talking about atheists who believe that man got here through the random chance of evolution and simultaneously hold the belief that we are all equal. Such beliefs exist amongst certain individuals and I am interested in the philosophy of the psychology of these individuals thought process on the matter. Whether they are right or not is another thing. Of course, I do not think they are right. But that we got here through evolution and nothing more is clearly the predominant belief amongst atheists. And I assume that most of these people would state, at least publicly, that we are all equal. So I was wanting to explore this thought process which I find to be philosophically inconsistent.

 

[Golden Yak]

If God did not grant us all with a soul created in His image, then we are the mere product of random evolution (I'm not saying that evolution did or did not happen by the way). But if evolution did occur AND there is no God who grants us a soul, then there is no sense in saying that we are all equal as people. The thought that random, unethical, cold, and uncaring biochemical chance produced a bunch of beings that are completely equal to each other is absurd.

Discuss

I agree. And I don't think you'll find a biologist who asserts that the evolutionary process has rendered all living humans equal. There are many who are stronger, more intelligent, healthier, etc. than others.

But social equality means treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law, however, not that all are physically and mentally equal or equivalent to one-another. This is evidently not the case, whether we are created or naturally evolved.

As Nithavela said, this is how our society has developed and we've found it to be a good way to operate.

 

[Redemptions]

I get a little bitter when I show someone that those times were not uniformly sexist and the answer of that person is that he believes that they were uniformly sexist.

You've been bitter since the first post, Tiger. Before the "I show someone that those times were not uniformly sexist" post. I maintain it's because you skipped breakfast, or perhaps if you did eat breakfast, somebody peed in it. That would make me bitter too.

Anyways, you're not going to successfully argue that most non-Abrahamic cultures back then (or even now) held women as true equals. Even in the examples you gave, women were still not held as absolute equals in those cultures. Examples or sexism in the non-Abrahamic religion regions of the world are far more abundant than examples of their equality. Just because you can come up with a few examples of supposed equality, it does not drown out the deluge of examples of where sexism was prevalent and (in fact) continues to be prevalent.

At any rate, it is not the direct question I was trying to raise in this thread anyways. You should eat breakfast tomorrow and start a different thread tomorrow to post it. You could call it, "why I think the Bible is sexist."

"I get a little bitter when I show someone that those times were not uniformly sexist and the answer of that person is that he believes that they were uniformly sexist." Show me were in my previous post that I stated that I believe that they were uniformly sexist. I never said this. You're hypoglycemic. It's affecting your ability to read. You need calories.

 

[Redemptions]

I agree. And I don't think you'll find a biologist who asserts that the evolutionary process has rendered all living humans equal. There are many who are stronger, more intelligent, healthier, etc. than others.

But social equality means treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law, however, not that all are physically and mentally equal or equivalent to one-another. This is evidently not the case, whether we are created or naturally evolved.

As Nithavela said, this is how our society has developed and we've found it to be a good way to operate.

Hi Golden. Thanks for your response. I haven't really read the thoughts of top biologists on this matter so that's interesting that you say that.

 

[evoeth]

So I was wanting to explore this thought process which I find to be philosophically inconsistent.

So don't kick it off with a logically inconsistent proposition then!

 

[essentialsaltes]

If God did not grant us all with a soul created in His image, then we are the mere product of random evolution (I'm not saying that evolution did or did not happen by the way). But if evolution did occur AND there is no God who grants us a soul, then there is no sense in saying that we are all equal as people. The thought that random, unethical, cold, and uncaring biochemical chance produced a bunch of beings that are completely equal to each other is absurd.

People are not the same height. The same weight. The same color. The same gender. And so on. It's clear that people are not all equal in the sense of identical, or in any sense based on objective measurements.

The statement that all 'men' are equal is a political statement, not a scientific one, and there is no reason atheists cannot accept it.