Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307130595' post='2249566']
Love does not exist without God. Love would be yet another made up social construct. So for an atheist to say he 'loves' anyone is for the atheist to believe or state something that is only imaginary. What a depressing pointless existance to think that the love I would have for my wife does not in fact exist but is only imaginary and is just a product of societal social constructs, and cheicmcial and biological functions in my body. [/quote]

Love is an experience, it is felt, there's nothing to suggest that it exists outside minds capable of feeling it.

Saying that love does not exist without god, however, does not follow. That is pure subjective opinion, and just because you believe in god does not make it factual (objective).


[quote]I'm not confused at all. You've not stated any facts other than 1+1=2, and even that is sometimes argued as relative. And thanks but I dismiss the rest of this as just your personal opinion which is in no way binding in reality.[/quote]

I think you are. Your attack on wikipedia (and by extension other encyclopedias and information databases, however crude) shows this.

How is 1+1=2 relative?

And we all make our realities...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307146263' post='2249671']
And we all make our realities...
[/quote]
You're a solipsist too?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]You're a solipsist too?[/quote]

Only on very insecure days, when I question every subjective opinion I have which may not be binding in reality...

Edit: not usually. I see my opinions as being models of reality in some sense, which could be changed to accomodate new facts and accept or dismiss interpretations of other opinions and facts.

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307128502' post='2249547']
First of all, the commandment is thou shalt not [b]murder[/b]. that is an important distinction to make. Secondly, have you ever heard of the concept of free will? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will[/url]
[/quote]

I stand corrected.

What's the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' if there is intent to steal a life? If god commands it then it is killing but not murder?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307055618' post='2249317']
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma"]Euthyphro's Dilemma[/url]

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNHUFgdpk4[/media]

[Amppax]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1307148415' post='2249703']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNHUFgdpk4[/media]
[/quote]

Makes sense ::

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1307128634' post='2249551']
*arbitrarily enters the conversation*

i think that all goodness exists within God, and are "good" due to the inherent nature of God (not arbitrary commands)... but those are just my initial thoughts...
[/quote]

Okay, so you view it as god is intrinsically good. Just to see where you stand on the issue, would you also say that all good things from god? Also, do you see god as having free will to change what is inherent to him?

If so, then they would be arbitrary, because then objective morality would change in accordance to god's 'moral state', you could say. Divine moral commands would still be objective according to this view but would not be eternal, and if they're not eternal then they can't be intrinsically good. I think a structure of evolving morality can fit this picture, but it will still run into the same problems that we relativists deal with when two situations come into conflict. Something is going to have to be a lesser evil.

If not, then god himself would have a moral standard which he abides to which he couldn't change because it's intrinsically good and therefore couldn't be changed into something not good.

What are your views on this?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1307148415' post='2249703']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNHUFgdpk4[/media]
[/quote]

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307147516' post='2249687']
I stand corrected.

What's the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' if there is intent to steal a life? If god commands it then it is killing but not murder?
[/quote]

Killing is any taking of a life. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Not all life is innocent. If someone attacks you, you are within your rights to defend your life, up to and including lethal force. Thus self defense (and on a larger scale [b]just[/b] war) are completely appropriate times for killing (if its necessary). Murder is taking of a life that is innocent (has not forfeited its right to life) thus is always wrong. Please provide an example of where God ordered killing, i'm honestly not that well versed in scripture (although i'm taking steps to rectify this deficiency) and so off of the top of my head i cannot think of any instances of God ordering murder. Legitimate killing? yes. Murder? no.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307135913' post='2249615']
[quote]I think that the main difference here is that those people willing to murder people that happen to be atheists fulfill [i]all[/i] requirements for atheism, although those Catholics that do so are misguided, and do not follow all of the teachings that they are supposed to follow. [/quote]


I still don't see the point of the argument. Atheism does not lead to being a murderer. They may fullful all the rerequirements of atheism, but also fulfil all the requirements of being human and all the requirements of being alive, you could even say all the requirements of being god's creation.
I just don't get the point, how does this imply anything about atheism?
[/quote]

Seconded.

Athiest only means lacks a belief in gods, it says nothing about an athiest's beliefs. I won't deny that Stalin was a athiest, be he killed millions [i]because[/i] he was an athiest? That makes as much sense as killing millions because you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Athiesm is not even a set of beliefs, it's just a broader categorization of structured beliefs with the only thing in common is a lack of belief in god(s).

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307150076' post='2249716']
Seconded.

Athiest only means lacks a belief in gods, it says nothing about an athiest's beliefs. I won't deny that Stalin was a athiest, be he killed millions [i]because[/i] he was an athiest? That makes as much sense as killing millions because you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Athiesm is not even a set of beliefs, it's just a broader categorization of structured beliefs with the only thing in common is a lack of belief in god(s).
[/quote]

I think part of the argument is not that stalin killed people because he was atheist, but because he lacked the ethical values, which KoC, and others, [b]would [/b]attribute to his lack of belief in God.

I'm also going to take this opportunity to throw this out there, b/c i feel it is very applicable based on where this discussion has been going. Specifically, look at what Kant says: [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/[/url] I love his argument

[Amppax]

*Edit: double post

Edited June 4, 2011 by Amppax

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307149555' post='2249715']
Killing is any taking of a life. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Not all life is innocent. If someone attacks you, you are within your rights to defend your life, up to and including lethal force. Thus self defense (and on a larger scale [b]just[/b] war) are completely appropriate times for killing (if its necessary). Murder is taking of a life that is innocent (has not forfeited its right to life) thus is always wrong. Please provide an example of where God ordered killing, i'm honestly not that well versed in scripture (although i'm taking steps to rectify this deficiency) and so off of the top of my head i cannot think of any instances of God ordering murder. Legitimate killing? yes. Murder? no.
[/quote]

Me neither, but I'll add the most common criticisms. Here are two for instance:

God kills children:

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Though you could say that the people of Samaria were not innocent because they rebelled against god (life is cheap), what justification is there for killing babies who had nothing to do with anything other than be born to those parents (supposibly through god's will too)?

So, once again I'll ask for your definition of words: what's the difference between 'innocent' and guilty' in the context of these two passages? By today's standards, those babies and civilians would be considered innocent.

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307151243' post='2249720']
Me neither, but I'll add the most common criticisms. Here are two for instance:

God kills children:

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Though you could say that the people of Samaria were not innocent because they rebelled against god (life is cheap), what justification is there for killing babies who had nothing to do with anything other than be born to those parents (supposibly through god's will too)?

So, once again I'll ask for your definition of words: what's the difference between 'innocent' and guilty' in the context of these two passages? By today's standards, those babies and civilians would be considered innocent.
[/quote]

Honestly, i don't know if I can give you a good answer, and it would be silly of me to do so, especially considering the wealth of knowledge some people on this forum have.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307150392' post='2249717']
I think part of the argument is not that stalin killed people because he was atheist, but because he lacked the ethical values, which KoC, and others, [b]would [/b]attribute to his lack of belief in God.

I'm also going to take this opportunity to throw this out there, b/c i feel it is very applicable based on where this discussion has been going. Specifically, look at what Kant says: [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/"]http://plato.stanfor...-arguments-god/ [/url] I love his argument
[/quote]

But that's precisely the thing that me and Stevil are arguing against. Atheism just means no belief in god. KoC and those who think that way would have to first prove that people can't be moral/good/just without a belief in god. And attacking relativism isn't a good way to do this because, though there are flaws and inconsistencies, some of the general underlying principals are the same. What does it matter if it's someone's subjective opinion that people shouldn't kill or steal? It's the actions that affect others, not how people interpret whether they're objective or projected.

And again, just saying that there is objective morality that coincides with the one personally chosen is just as meaningless without firslty proving that there actually is such a thing as objective morality and a divine moral standard setter.

I think Kant takes a few leaps of faith but that's because what I think is summed up here:

[quote]How we have a fact from which moral arguments for God's existence can proceed: there [i]appear[/i] to be morally normative facts/qualities in the world. Many of these arguments claim that the postulation of God provides the best explanation of this fact. We must use "appear" to record the fact, because there is a venerable line of thought in philosophy contending that moral bindingness is not real. It is a projection on the part of the human mind. It is no more "out there" in the world-minus-us than is (on some accounts) a secondary quality like taste. I say that the whisky tastes sweet, [i]appearing[/i] to ascribe a quality to it. But in truth there is no sweetness in this mix of chemicals. I am projecting a reaction which I and others have toward it. So: we can be realists or anti-realists about the existence of moral normativity. Such projective accounts of moral normativity, of moral qualities and facts, offer one naturalistic explanation of the appearance of normativity. A projective explanation thus avoids the need to posit God as the best explanation of the fact that moral normativity appears to exist. Proponents of theoretical moral arguments will contend that projectionism is false to our experience and gives rise to forms of moral skepticism that are corrosive of moral thought and action. We cannot rule on such issues here. [/quote]

I don't think morality exists outside social constructs and that moral order is [i]necessary[/i] for complex societies to thrive. And before KoC can answer, yes, it is my subjective opinion.

All his arguments can apply to any form of theism, all which claim their god is the objective moral standard setter. It doesn't say much about the objective Truth when it comes to each moral claim.

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

double post

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[HisChildForever]

I will try to answer this to the best of my ability.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307151243' post='2249720']
Me neither, but I'll add the most common criticisms. Here are two for instance:

God kills children:

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT) [/quote]

The Death of the First Born was the tenth plague sent by God, as you know. Pharaoh was continuously shown the supreme power of God; before this he was given numerous chances to release God's people. As the ruler of Egypt, the people of Egypt were his responsibility. Much like the pastor of a Church is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his parishioners, Pharaoh was responsible for his people's very lives. Pharaoh's people were like his children, just as God's people are His children, and one could argue that God met out a just punishment (again, not a punishment without prior warning) for enslaving His children for decades - and let's not forget that the previous Pharaoh issued the slaughter of Jewish sons when Moses was an infant. In fact, you can read about that [url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/02001.htm"]here, Exodus 1:9-22[/url].

It was Pharaoh's pride, stubbornness, and disobedience that caused the death of the first born. He could have easily stayed God's hand by submitting, but refused and thus condemned his people to death. If God wanted the first born dead He could have willed them dead without a second thought. Instead He let Pharaoh make the decision. Pharaoh constantly "dared" or "tested" God, keep that in mind. And so Pharaoh put his own people on the line, again and again, despite all the plagues - the people who loved and served him, no less.

[quote] "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Though you could say that the people of Samaria were not innocent because they rebelled against god (life is cheap), what justification is there for killing babies who had nothing to do with anything other than be born to those parents (supposibly through god's will too)? [/quote]

Just to let you know, you cited Hosea incorrectly - that verse comes from Hosea 14:1. My translation (Douay-Rheims) also reads differently. You used the same translation when citing Exodus but I feel that, in this case, the translation makes a significant difference.

[quote] [b]Let[/b] Samaria perish, because she hath stirred up her God to bitterness: [b]let[/b] them perish by the sword, [b]let[/b] their little ones be dashed, and [b]let[/b] the women with child be ripped up.[/quote]

Note that your translation states that the people [b]will[/b] be killed, whereas the translation [b]let[/b] seems to imply a passionate admonishment, not an absolute declaration but an expression that their sins are so horrid death is the only just punishment. Before and after this verse, God gives Israel a very similar condemnation and reminds Israel that their only hope and salvation is in Him.

Someone more learned than me can elaborate on that, or correct it if need be.

[4588686]

[size="7"]HEY!












HEY!













HEY![/size]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307151397' post='2249721']
Honestly, i don't know if I can give you a good answer, and it would be silly of me to do so, especially considering the wealth of knowledge some people on this forum have.
[/quote]

Okay.

I've actually become very curious to know what others say because this example seems to go against what is almost universal moral intuitive knowledge that is psychologically normal people only inflict justified action on someone who has inflicted some (even if by participation) sort of action on them or on group extentions such as actions being inflicted on family members, countrymen, people of the same religious afiliation or anyone else that can be strongly related to. It just seems to be one of those premises on which any moral structure (in order to be moral) is based.

Bashing babies who are too young to even speak their names goes against this.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1307154582' post='2249738']
[size="7"]HEY!












HEY!













HEY![/size]
[/quote]

Um...hollaz?