The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Check the CF statement of faith. The definition of Christian is one who holds to the rule of faith and creeds.

Mormons do not. That is why CF does not allow Mormons to post in Christian areas of the forum and only in the world religions forum.

Well, there you go!

Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs that Mormon's actually have? If and when you do, you'll find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words as Christians, but they instead pour different meanings into them.

I haven't studied it, no - but I am certainly aware of their most unusual version of Christianity.

No. It does not.

Righto!

 

[DogmaHunter]

In an autopsy a damaged heart would beat out intelligent intervention as cause of death. The cause was natural, not intelligent. Science rules out intelligent intervention all the time.

So, is it your opinion that not having or knowing a natural explanation, is how one establishes "intelligent intervention"?

If yes, I'll inform you that that is how back in the day people concluded that Thor is the cause of thunder and lightning.

Again, it's called the argument from ignorance.

Digital code in DNA for one.

Assuming for a second that we don't understand anything about genetics. Let's pretend we don't know how evolution shapes DNA.

How does DNA establish intelligent intervention?

Take it back to a start and deduce two possible causes. Intelligence or nonintelligence and intelligence wins out.

How? Why?

The problem here is not with the evidence.

What evidence? I still read nothing but bare assertions.

Ignorance does not falsify. It is not our problem atheists do not like the answers.

What answers? You mean your bare assertions?
Those aren't answers. Those are claims (not in evidence).

You do not know there is nothing there to falsify.

I keep asking for what is there, but you just keep repeating your claims instead of giving the actual evidence that you insist exists.

You just assume it based on your dogmatic atheism. It blinds you.

Projecting, much?

Intelligent intervention can be falsified scientifically

If it is properly defined in testable ways.
Which you still haven't done. You can't test the untestable.
How are your claims testable?

Not really and neither is the opinion of a dead atheist. At least not scientifically. The asserted without evidence (Hitch) is not a science standard in the first place. It is the standard of a dead atheist attempting to validate his atheism.

Ow dear...
So you disagree then? You feel like any claim that isn't in evidence should be taken seriously? You feel like the burden of proof is never in the camp of the one making the claim?

So, I take it that you can disprove that there is an undetectable dragon following you around everywhere you go?

Give you? What makes you think i am here to spoon feed you?

Yes, I already noticed that you are not interested in justifying your religious claims. You are content just making the claims, preaching them and believing them.

Right atheism explains nothing and does not require brains if defined as lack belief.

If that makes you sleep at night.

Most atheists believe that man is natural and being natural is amoral. Big-brained apes and inequality which naturally leads to slavery. Why not enslave humans if they are animals?

Please don't project your own moral bankrupcy on me.

It explains both the origin of the universe and life here.

It asserts without evidence. It explains exactly nothing. If anything, it prevents a proper explanation.

So it is a valid model even if you don't like it

Valid models are well supported by objective evidence and they are testable.
Your "model" is neither.

Not liking does not falsify it.

Can't falsify the unfalisifable....

Plane presupposes intelligent design, not natural processes. Why use ID to argue against ID?

WOOSH!
(that's the sound of the point flying over your head)

How bout a plane happening naturally?

Planes don't happen naturally. They are human manufactured devices.

 

[dmmesdale]

So, is it your opinion

No.

that not having or knowing a natural explanation, is how one establishes "intelligent intervention"?

A heart attack would be the conclusion of the medical examiner after examination and falsifying intelligent intervention.

If yes, I'll inform you that that is how back in the day people concluded that Thor is the cause of thunder and lightning.

Is that like thermal vents in the ocean the first cause of you?

Again, it's called the argument from ignorance.

Tell it to the medical examiner. Just ignore the examples. You are not interested because you are dogmatically committed so let's not pretend you are open.

Assuming for a second that we don't understand anything about genetics. Let's pretend we don't know how evolution shapes DNA.

We know more about code then we do about gravity. There is digital code in DNA. We can map it probably right down to eye color. The code tells us. It is there and we can decode it. What its its source? How did it initially get there? Intelligence or nonintelligence?

How does DNA establish intelligent intervention?

Digital code. You need to falsify intelligence for digital code in DNA so have at it. The code has to be there before the organism develops. Blue eyes means a prior code for blue eyes. A code, a transmission, and a decoder. Evolution 2.0

If it is properly defined in testable ways.

You don't need proper definition. That is not a science standard. It is something you ginned up. It's not like SETI would use it. We don't have a proper definition so the signal must be natural even if we break the code and find out it contains building instructions. Digital code in DNA contains building instructions. Complex codes evidence of intelligence. Can't have it both ways. We have the facts. You have the emotional reactions.

Which you still haven't done. You can't test the untestable.

You can falsify intelligent intervention. So have at it.

Ow dear...
So you disagree then? You feel like any claim that isn't in evidence should be taken seriously? You feel like the burden of proof is never in the camp of the one making the claim?

The claim resonates with reasonable people which exclude atheists. Dead Hitchens does not dictate science standards. The Hitch mandate is not science in the first place nor is it practiced consistently by atheists who believe the exclusive source for all life here is thermal vents in the ocean. Talk about suspending reason in favor of blind faith!

So, I take it that you can disprove that there is an undetectable dragon following you around everywhere you go?

That would simply be dismissed. Imaginary dragons do not falsify triangles, squares or math equations which exist outside time space matter independent of humand minds and are discovered not invented. The dragon would not exist by necessity. Has zero to do with the context of the discussion. It is a self serving deflection. Imaginary dragons do not falsify real hypos when dealing with origin of life and the universe. The author would naturally stand outside of His work like an author stands outside his book. That is just what Gen.1:1 says. Outside the universe, time space and matter.

Yes, I already noticed that you are not interested in justifying your religious claims.

It is impossible with certain types. Or the timing is off. So why should i be interested in digging a hole to China?

You are content just making the claims, preaching them and believing them.

Not really. There may be other reasons. Sometimes the discussions are of interest.

Please don't project your own moral bankrupcy on me.

Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral. That is the real appeal to atheism. It is self-delusion because man is image of God and moral. We do not follow our nature, we adhere to laws which regulate our nature. You have not answered, just dismissed. That is not science. If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them? You do know equality is religious superstition and unscientific because man is natural and amoral?

It asserts without evidence.

You got a better one? The evidence is everything here. So you are wrong. An acorn is evidence of an oak. The oak is evidence of an acorn. A plan is evidence of the plane. The plane is evidence of a plan.

It explains exactly nothing.

It explains the origin of the universe and life here. Wrong again.

If anything, it prevents a proper explanation.

Wrong again. It stops nothing. Never has.

Valid models are well supported by objective evidence

Everything here including life is objective evidence. Just like an oak tee is evidence of an acorn. Absent the acorn no oak tree and absent intelligent intervention, no us.

and they are testable.
Your "model" is neither.

So where are your tests for extinct mystery creatures and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction?

Can't falsify the unfalisifable....

Its not unfalsifiable. Either that or you cannot falsify your existence because your existence cannot be falsified by you. Therefore your existence is unscientific even if it is true.

WOOSH!
(that's the sound of the point flying over your head)

There was no point. Your example was lousy and does not support your assumptions.

Planes don't happen naturally. They are human manufactured devices.

Well if you wish to falsify intelligence then you would need to show a plane happening naturally. Absent intelligence. So have at it and don't say humans are a science stopper. Like you did above. It prevents further research. Like you did above. Or that human intervention is wrong because we do not know the identity of the human. Or all these other excuses. I gotta get ready for church. You don't mind if i pray for you, do ya?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. A heart attack would be the conclusion of the medical examiner after examination and falsifying intelligent intervention.

No, actually.
The cause of the hearth attack could be the result of poisoning for example.

In any case, you're just dead wrong.
You don't validate an idea by excluding alternatives.
You validate an idea by actually confirming that idea.

You're really stuck in this argument from ignorance.

Is that like thermal vents in the ocean the first cause of you?

No idea what you are talking about. I'll assume it's some kind of strawman.

Tell it to the medical examiner. Just ignore the examples. You are not interested because you are dogmatically committed so let's not pretend you are open.

None of your examples are valid, as I have explained.

We know more about code then we do about gravity. There is digital code in DNA. We can map it probably right down to eye color. The code tells us. It is there and we can decode it. What its its source?

Is is a molecule shaped by the processes of evolution. yes, we know quite a few things about genetics.

How did it initially get there?

If you mean, what is the origin of life, then my answer is that I don't know.

Intelligence or nonintelligence?

I don't know. I expect it to be some kind of chemical process, sure.
However, unlike some, I actually have an open mind and am willing to look at any evidence you may have. Bare assertions on the other hand, don't interest me.

You need to falsify intelligence for digital code in DNA so have at it.

This is so funny. It almost sounds like you are saying that the default position to any question is that an "intelligence" did it, until proven otherwise.

You don't need proper definition.

lol...
Without proper definitions, nobody knows what you are talking about.

That is not a science standard. It is something you ginned up

No, I did not "make up" that things need to be properly defined before they can be investigated.

It's not like SETI would use it. We don't have a proper definition so the signal must be natural even if we break the code and find out it contains building instructions.

SETI just looks for anomalies and doesn't assume the answers before asking the questions.

You can falsify intelligent intervention

The claim resonates with reasonable people which exclude atheists. Dead Hitchens does not dictate science standards. The Hitch mandate is not science in the first place nor is it practiced consistently by atheists who believe the exclusive source for all life here is thermal vents in the ocean.

Engaging in strawmen again, I see.
I don't care to whom the claim "resonates" or not. I don't care how many people like to believe the claim or not. I care about the evidence in support of the claim. Got any?

That would simply be dismissed

Ow? So when it doesn't concern your god, suddenly things asserted without evidence CAN be dismissed without evidence?
How about! How totally unsurprising!

The dragon would not exist by necessity. Has zero to do with the context of the discussion. It is a self serving deflection.

Nope. It is one of an infinite pool of examples of unfalsifiable claims.

Unfalsifiable claims, are without merrit/value. And that includes your religious unfalsifiable claims.

Imaginary dragons do not falsify real hypos when dealing with origin of life and the universe.

And the same goes for imaginary gods. Or even for real gods that are indistinguishable from the imaginary.

See? This is why falsifiability is important. Unfalsifiable claims, are indistinguishable from pure fantasy. There is zero reason to even consider them.

The author would naturally stand outside of His work like an author stands outside his book. That is just what Gen.1:1 says. Outside the universe, time space and matter.

Yes, in the same realm as that undetectable dragon.

Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.

Doesn't follow and false equivocation.
"nature" is not a conscious entity, nore a member of a social species.
"nature" isn't capable of morality.

It's just a very childish and silly variation of trying to portray "them' atheists" as evil baby eating monsters.

In fact, it's starting to smell like an ad hominim.

That is the real appeal to atheism. It is self-delusion because man is image of God and moral. We do not follow our nature, we adhere to laws which regulate our nature. You have not answered, just dismissed. That is not science. If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them?

According to your religion, slavery is a-okay.

I don't need any moral lessons from someone who adheres to a moral compass that is virtually indistinguishable from psychopathy, thanks.

So kindly stick to topic instead of trying to dehumanize me in rather insulting fashion.
I will not ask twice.

It explains the origin of the universe and life here.

"god-dun-it", explains nothing. It asserts and it doesn't raise understanding in any aspect. You might need to look up what the word "explain" means.

So where are your tests for extinct mystery creatures and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction?

No idea what you are talking about.
What creatures?

Well if you wish to falsify intelligence then you would need to show a plane happening naturally.

No. I can only show that a plane was in fact manufactured. I can't show that it wasn't.
That would be trying to prove a negative.

Absent intelligence. So have at it and don't say humans are a science stopper. Like you did above. It prevents further research. Like you did above. Or that human intervention is wrong because we do not know the identity of the human. Or all these other excuses. I gotta get ready for church.

Sounds like on top of it all, you didn't understand a word I said either.

You don't mind if i pray for you, do ya?​

You can think about me all you want. ​

 

[theQuincunx5]

There is digital code in DNA.

And you do realize that that code is predicated on some ridiculously simple chemical relationships, correct? Hydrogen bonds and bond angles pretty much it.

That simple encoding system defintely can do a lot, but there's not a lot of mystical aspects to it.

What its its source? How did it initially get there? Intelligence or nonintelligence?

Simple chemistry.

Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.

I don't see how this follows. Morality can easily be established as a necessary code of conduct to enhance the actions of a SOCIAL animal.

Senseless killing is immoral for us. For a reason. Do you think a well-fed housecat that senselessly kills a mouse it doesn't need for food is acting immorally?

That is the real appeal to atheism.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I live just as moral a life as you likely do. I don't drink, I try to limit my false witness against others, I honored my parents when they were alive. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years. I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anyone or do any of that.

Why would you think we want to be "amoral"??? It would make for a horrible society if people felt like they could steal willy-nilly from each other! Jeez!

If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them?

We definitely saw plenty of support of slavery in the Bible. That is one of the reasons we need to get away from religious justifications for things like that.

 

[dmmesdale]

Simple chemistry.

Garbage. if so then duplicate it.

I don't see how this follows. Morality can easily be established as a necessary code of conduct to enhance the actions of a SOCIAL animal.

Sure it can but why follow it?

Senseless killing is immoral for us.

It is natural and amoral in nature. That being we are natural and therefore amoral. Lets not create group fictions which defy objective reality. Nobody outisde would reasonable have to adhere to your group fictions.

For a reason. Do you think a well-fed housecat that senselessly kills a mouse it doesn't need for food is acting immorally?

No. Do you? How so? Are we judging cats now? Holding cats to some sort of moral standard? Gotta go.

 

[Silmarien]

Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.

Not everyone agrees. See Philippa Foot on Natural Goodness.

I live just as moral a life as you likely do. I don't drink, I try to limit my false witness against others, I honored my parents when they were alive. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years. I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anyone or do any of that.

Why would you think we want to be "amoral"??? It would make for a horrible society if people felt like they could steal willy-nilly from each other! Jeez!

Eh, it's the moral relativists' fault. Try to argue with them that morality can exist objectively on an atheistic metaphysics and things descend into madness pretty quickly. Positive emotions only matter situationally and even mental illness is only a problem depending on your personal values.

Seriously, if you want people to not think that atheists are sociopaths, try to convince your own side that morality is objectively important. I am beginning to suspect that they really don't want to be beholden to anything except their own subjective preferences.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Seriously, if you want people to not think that atheists are sociopaths, try to convince your own side that morality is objectively important.

Really? I mean, in my lifetime I've seen SO MANY people of strong religious faith do the most horrific things imaginable. It seems that there is NO correlation between faith or lack thereof and the ability to do horrible, horrible things.

I am beginning to suspect that they really don't want to be beholden to anything except their own subjective preferences.

I honestly don't know where people get that idea. I really don't. It sounds like a cartoon at best and at worst as a hopeful lie to justify their dislike of atheists.

I have almost nothing but Christian friends and honestly, if I didn't explicitly state to them that I am an atheist, it would be REALLY hard for them to figure it out on their own just based on how I live my life.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not everyone agrees. See Philippa Foot on Natural Goodness.



Eh, it's the moral relativists' fault. Try to argue with them that morality can exist objectively on an atheistic metaphysics and things descend into madness pretty quickly. Positive emotions only matter situationally and even mental illness is only a problem depending on your personal values.

Seriously, if you want people to not think that atheists are sociopaths, try to convince your own side that morality is objectively important. I am beginning to suspect that they really don't want to be beholden to anything except their own subjective preferences.

By that logic, if you lost your faith and fear of god and/or eternal punishement you would start stealing/killing/living in hedonism?

 

[theQuincunx5]

Garbage. if so then duplicate it.

Well, we already can splice in genes. We know pretty well how the chemistry works. There's a really simple set of reasons why various bases pair as the do in DNA. You can read about it here: Chargaff's Rules of Base Pairing

I mean, look at that! It's less than half a page of text and it boils down to a couple of simple rules!

Is there complexity that can arise from that? Sure! No doubt. Proteins can be extremely complex...but it's predicated on pretty standard first year chemistry.

Sure it can but why follow it?

Because we are social animals and it makes for a safer social network which provides us a survival advantage.

The alternative is to accept that people don't murder each other simply because God told them not to. If the only reason someone doesn't murder their parents in their sleep is because they think God said not to, then I worry about them.

 

[Silmarien]

Really? I mean, in my lifetime I've seen SO MANY people of strong religious faith do the most horrific things imaginable. It seems that there is NO correlation between faith or lack thereof and the ability to do horrible, horrible things.

The question is how we would go about determining what qualifies as "horrible." Assuming that someone has not been indoctrinated into a particularly virulent form of religion (which is unfortunately too common), most theists will have a fairly intuitive understanding of what is good and what is not.

Once you drop theism, however, Nietzsche's prophecy comes into play. How can the modern picture of virtue and goodness, that was born and raised in the cradle of Western Christianity, survive without it? I am not sure. A century ago, atheists were still trying to find a secular grounding for morality, but we seem to be moving into a feelings based approach which seems almost fascist in its insistence that my morality is right no matter what because it doesn't extent beyond me. (But then I can try to enforce it throughout society anyway.)

I honestly don't know where people get that idea. I really don't. It sounds like a cartoon at best and at worst as a hopeful lie to justify their dislike of atheists.

I have almost nothing but Christian friends and honestly, if I didn't explicitly state to them that I am an atheist, it would be REALLY hard for them to figure it out on their own just based on how I live my life.

I have gotten that idea here, honestly. My social circle is pretty secular, but I generally don't have extensive discussions on metaethics with them. Maybe occasionally. Online, however, the dark underbelly of the atheistic movement shows its face, and it's about as disturbing as some of the uglier stuff that goes on in modern Christianity.

I'm happy saying that some of the most admirable people in history have been atheists (I'm a huge fan of Albert Camus), but the trends I'm seeing trouble me.

By that logic, if you lost your faith and fear of god and/or eternal punishement you would start stealing/killing/living in hedonism?

I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't believe that moral realism directly requires theism at all. I am a proponent of naturalistic Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, hence my link to the work of atheistic philosopher Philippa Foot.

 

[redleghunter]

So? Why must there be purpose?
Sounds like an emotional argument. As in, you're not going to accept scientific theory X, because you don't "like" with it implies or means. Or you "prefer" living in a universe where something else is true.

That's fine, but hopefully you realise that your emotional preferences have no bearing on what is actually true.

Humanity seeks purpose. This cannot be ignored. As created in the image and according to the likeness of God, we endeavor purpose and see it in creation. It's not emotional just fact.

That is demonstrably false. Off course, you might miss the demonstration if your head is firmly lodged into the ground.

Perhaps you are correct. The above did not take much intelligence to communicate.

huh? No idea what that is about.

It's about actually having physical evidence of origins from solely a materialistic worldview.

 

[VirOptimus]

The question is how we would go about determining what qualifies as "horrible." Assuming that someone has not been indoctrinated into a particularly virulent form of religion (which is unfortunately too common), most theists will have a fairly intuitive understanding of what is good and what is not.

Once you drop theism, however, Nietzsche's prophecy comes into play. How can the modern picture of virtue and goodness, that was born and raised in the cradle of Western Christianity, survive without it? I am not sure. A century ago, atheists were still trying to find a secular grounding for morality, but we seem to be moving into a feelings based approach which seems almost fascist in its insistence that my morality is right no matter what because it doesn't extent beyond me. (But then I can try to enforce it throughout society anyway.)



I have gotten that idea here, honestly. My social circle is pretty secular, but I generally don't have extensive discussions on metaethics with them. Maybe occasionally. Online, however, the dark underbelly of the atheistic movement shows its face, and it's about as disturbing as some of the uglier stuff that goes on in modern Christianity.

I'm happy saying that some of the most admirable people in history have been atheists (I'm a huge fan of Albert Camus), but the trends I'm seeing trouble me.



I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't believe that moral realism directly requires theism at all. I am a proponent of naturalistic Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, hence my link to the work of atheistic philosopher Philippa Foot.

Beliving in absolute morals and absolute truth is the thing that breeds fanatics and fascism. Not the other way around.

 

[Silmarien]

Beliving in absolute morals and absolute truth is the thing that breeds fanatics and fascism. Not the other way around.

The history of the 20th century would indicate that you are wrong.

“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”
― Benito Mussolini

If you lack the belief that human dignity is of objective, universal value, you end up with Holocausts and Soviet labor camps. More modernly, you end up with the alt-right. If you don't accept as an absolute truth that there's something wrong with this stuff, then you're going to have trouble coherently arguing against fascism and fanaticism at all. (Without your own claims simply being an assertion of your own will to power, at least.)

 

[redleghunter]

Just like the slave trade itself: started and run by chrisitians.

First I was responding to the above one sided argument and incomplete narrative. I provided the evidence that yes there was then as there is now wheat and tares in the visible Church.

Secondly, no Christians did not start the African slave trade market. It was actually Arab Muslims. Colonial European powers expanded it trans Atlantic.

History is not so tidy as some wish it to be.

 

[dmmesdale]

We definitely saw plenty of support of slavery in the Bible.

It is recorded and regulated. What you do not see is kidnapping for the purpose of enslavement since it would violate Torah law and bring about death for the offender. Besides you deflected. You never answered. I would like to know if man is animal and there is inequality then why is owning people and enslaving immoral? It certainly does have precedent in human history. Humans can forbid it via contract but that would not be universal nor would it rationally apply backward in time. Like you are doing above. Nor would it apply to cultures who consider the practice acceptable. Contracts are not universal and covenants without swords are mere words. No rational atheist outside the contract would have to adhere to those restrictions. It would be proximate to outlawing the use of horses to ride. OK they can do that in la la land but outside of that location they can ride horses anytime they please and the restriction would not take effect backward. So being atheist, lets not talk about ancient cultures because when it comes to morals the atheist is standing on air. Besides these are appeals to outrage and not reason. Outrage is no sub for reason.

That is one of the reasons we need to get away from religious justifications for things like that.

Like what? Slavery was universal in ancient times. If it was not addressed then critics would argue anachronisms because it is absent. What leads away from slavery is man as image of God, equality before God and obligations to God for life lived including treatment of each other and nature.

In other words. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Not men.

 

[VirOptimus]

The history of the 20th century would indicate that you are wrong.

“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”
― Benito Mussolini

If you lack the belief that human dignity is of objective, universal value, you end up with Holocausts and Soviet labor camps. More modernly, you end up with the alt-right. If you don't accept as an absolute truth that there's something wrong with this stuff, then you're going to have trouble coherently arguing against fascism and fanaticism at all. (Without your own claims simply being an assertion of your own will to power, at least.)

I disagree. Look at history, its absolute truth that breeds pogroms, slavery, war and other horrors. Its the questioning of moral values that have made the evolution of modern socities possible.

If you think you have absolute truths the there is no point arguing with you. If you are open to always evaluating your moral stances then betterment of society is possible.

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree. Look at history, its absolute truth that breeds pogroms, slavery, war and other horrors. Its the questioning of moral values that have made the evolution of modern socities possible.

If you think you have absolute truths the there is no point arguing with you. If you are open to always evaluating your moral stances then betterment of society is possible.

I am looking at history. Unless you think that the evolution of society is a "good" in its own right, no matter what it evolves into (which would be a bizarre claim to make), history is very much against you. Tsarist Russia evolved into the Soviet Union, and it was a human rights catastrophe. Human greed, fear of the other, and the need to control lead to horrors, not moral values.

I don't think you understand that certain things must be held as absolute truths for it to be even coherent to say that society is improving or growing worse. Otherwise, there would be no standard against which to compare it at all. If you are open to evaluating your moral stance that human dignity matters, then you could argue that eugenics is a step in the right direction for the betterment of society. This was common in the 19th century.

If you are going to be a nihilist, at least take your nihilism seriously. Don't fall back on the eschatological hope of social progress. With no absolute truth, there is nothing to progress towards. Society can never be better or worse. It simply is.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am looking at history. Unless you think that the evolution of society is a "good" in its own right, no matter what it evolves into (which would be a bizarre claim to make), history is very much against you. Tsarist Russia evolved into the Soviet Union, and it was a human rights catastrophe. Human greed, fear of the other, and the need to control lead to horrors, not moral values.

I don't think you understand that certain things must be held as absolute truths for it to be even coherent to say that society is improving or growing worse. Otherwise, there would be no standard against which to compare it at all. If you are open to evaluating your moral stance that human dignity matters, then you could argue that eugenics is a step in the right direction for the betterment of society. This was common in the 19th century.

If you are going to be a nihilist, at least take your nihilism seriously. Don't fall back on the eschatological hope of social progress. With no absolute truth, there is nothing to progress towards. Society can never be better or worse. It simply is.

Im a value nihilist.

Read Axel Hägerström för my views.

I deny the existance of metaphysics and good and evil is terms without meaning.

 

[Silmarien]

Im a value nihilist.

Read Axel Hägerström för my views.

I deny the existance of metaphysics and good and evil is terms without meaning.

That's unfortunate, since logical positivism is pretty much dead in the water. By denying metaphysics, you've put yourself in the uncomfortable position of holding a metaphysical position that refutes itself. Most atheistic philosophers have long since moved past this.

But my point was more that you cannot talk about things like the betterment of society if you are a value nihilist. There is no such thing as better or worse. At least be consistent with your views.