Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306995205' post='2249097']
Excellent point. If there is no objective truth, then all "truths" are then equal. So the propaganda employed by Lenin was just as much truth, good and morality as any other truth, good or morality.
[/quote]

We're all social animals living in a society trying to get along with eachother and live well. That's a truth, otherwise we would be choosing a solitary lifestyle rather than living as we do. The things is, we don't always get along and see eye to eye.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306995850' post='2249101']
We're all social animals living in a society trying to get along with eachother. That's a truth, otherwise we would be choosing a solitary lifestyle rather than living as we do. The things is, we don't always get along and see eye to eye.
[/quote]

If there is no objective truth society is nothing anyone is actually bound to obey or get along with, and one society's truth is just as equal in value as another society's truth.
Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory but they used this as justification to support and employ their unholy acts, they were not murdering men, but terminating animals.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306996316' post='2249103']
If there is no objective truth society is nothing anyone is actually bound to obey or get along with, and one society's truth is just as equal in value as another society's truth.
Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory but they used this as justification to support and employ their unholy acts, they were not murdering men, but terminating animals.
[/quote]

No, there is no objective Truth, but that doesn't automatically lay all opinions on equal ground.

[quote]Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory[/quote]

Did they actually say this? Though if there were looking for a justification, they would've found one, no matter what they believed.

Edit: some Muslims preach death to unbelievers...

Edit again: if you're going to try and bait me into trying to defend the communists because they were athiests I'm not going to do it.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']
No, there is no objective Truth, but that doesn't automatically lay all opinions on equal ground. [/quote]

Who's stronger is a factor. But yes pretty much without objective truth, there is no truth and only opinion. Everyone's opinions are equal, a opinion is a opinion. "I'm ok, you're ok" relativism.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']Did they actually say this? Though if there were looking for a justification, they would've found one, no matter what they believed.
[/quote]

Yes under the USSR and other Communist man is just a product of evolution of animal husbandry. Which is the case if man has no soul. Without a soul man is just a mere animal.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']
Edit: some Muslims preach death to unbelievers...[/quote]

Without objective truth, without objective morality, the opinion of belief [i]death to unbelievers[/i] cannot be said to be objectively wrong. One can have the opinion, but that would be just an opinion.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']Edit again: if you're going to try and bait me into trying to defend the communists because they were athiests I'm not going to do it.
[/quote]

Oh I'm not asking you to defend it at all. I only state that it was atheism, not your form of atheism but it was atheism, and that without objective truth their version of atheism is no more wrong or right than other forms of atheism.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306994598' post='2249094']
I myself rely on the biological and evolutionary arguement for morality, in which empathy is involved which usually (in normal human beings) restrains people against killing another more than stealing from another.

But yes, one "side effect" is that it's relative.
[/quote]

You rely on an argument that is relative?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307028370' post='2249174']
You rely on an argument that is relative?
[/quote]

Case sensitive.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306997767' post='2249107']
Without objective truth, without objective morality, the opinion of belief [i]death to unbelievers[/i] cannot be said to be objectively wrong. One can have the opinion, but that would be just an opinion.



Oh I'm not asking you to defend it at all. I only state that it was atheism, not your form of atheism but it was atheism, and that without objective truth their version of atheism is no more wrong or right than other forms of atheism.
[/quote]

Its a question of which premises you have. I would say that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort in my opinion. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

To me the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in my opinion, or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307031207' post='2249188']
Its a question of which premises you have. [b]I would say[/b] that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort [b]in my opinion[/b]. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

[b]To me[/b] the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in[b] my opinion[/b], or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).
[/quote]

Highlighted to show subjectivity

Edited June 2, 2011 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307031207' post='2249188']
Its a question of which premises you have. I would say that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort in my opinion. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

To me the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in my opinion, or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).
[/quote]

"To me" "my opinion" etc etc and that's all [i]well[/i] and [i]good[/i] but without object truth any argument you can come up with, any argument about any form of morality what so ever is just your opinion and it is no more right or wrong than any others opinion about morality.

Communists used Darwinism to explain that man was just an animal. When animals kill other animals it is not immoral, there's no evil in a dog killing a chicken, it's just nature. If man has no soul man is just a animal and "murder" like God is just a social construct based on opinion and open for interpretation.

Communist had a different form of morality than you, without objective truth and objective morality their form of morality was true just as true as your form of morality. Their truth was true for them and your truth is true for you. In Communist Russia the termination of the life cycles of 20 million upright apes was [i]good[/i] based on their morality.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306982489' post='2249037']
Even if they had a fail rate of 80% it's still better than 100% (as it would be in this context if condoms are not used). Just to be sure, what exactly are you defending? The non use of condoms in general or just within marriages?
[/quote]

You do realize that Catholicism teaches that condom use is immoral, don't you? It's for the same reasons that homosexuality is wrong. (Although most forms of Protestantism have trouble putting 2 and 2 together like this: they think homosexuality is wrong, but contraception is OK.)

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Also, if you want compare the number of viral molecules that can get through the fabric and the number contained in semen, just to let you know, semen has a much higher chance of actually infecting (as in causing an autoimmune response) than a few viruses which might not even be enough to be detected in blood tests.

Even between married monogamous couples, if one or both are HIV positive, they should still use condoms because one characteristic of the AIDS virus is that it mutates frequently (there are many types in the HIV "family") so someone with one type can still get infected with a more aggressive strain.
[/quote]

I'm saying that condom use is pretty much never good. For it to be acceptable, you *really* have to come up with bizarre scenarios. (Look at what Pope Benedict said several months ago, and how convoluted his statement was!)

Are you saying that playing Russian Roulette with your spouse's life/health is morally acceptable so long as you try to make sure that there's as few bullets in the gun as possible, and you have fun doing it? Or maybe, "risking a person's life is justified so long as I don't risk their life any more than necessary for me to enjoy it"?

Marriage is not a license for a physical relationship, it is a protection for the children of that union.

For your other conversations, I would recommend that you subscribe to the Austro-Libertarian "Non Aggression Principle." It is at least an internally consistent philosophy, even if it does fail to protect you from arguments about *why* it's immoral to initiate aggression.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307031207' post='2249188']
I would say that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is [b]objectively wrong[/b], without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort [b]in my opinion[/b]. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.
[/quote]

Your opinion is not objective.

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306997527' post='2249106']
But yes pretty much without objective truth, there is no truth and only opinion. Everyone's opinions are equal, a opinion is a opinion. "I'm ok, you're ok" relativism.
[/quote]
Yes, I absolutely agree, everyone is entitled to an opinion and opinions often differ. Within a democracy we take our individual opinions and vote for a party that we feel best represents us as an individual person.
After the vote, we then live by the rules governing our society, whether we agree with all of them or not

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306997527' post='2249106']
Which is the case if man has no soul. Without a soul man is just a mere animal.
[/quote]
Absolutely, people have no soul and people are animals. I am an atheist and this is the consequence of lacking a belief in gods.
China, Russia etc didn't really care about Atheism, but they saw religious organisations as competition for control on people that's why they got rid of them.


[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307038370' post='2249230']
You do realize that Catholicism teaches that condom use is immoral, don't you? It's for the same reasons that homosexuality is wrong. (Although most forms of Protestantism have trouble putting 2 and 2 together like this: they think homosexuality is wrong, but contraception is OK.)
[/quote]
In my personal atheist opinion, condoms are a good thing and homosexuality is good for people that are that way inclinded. Both include people that are consentual and are using their free will. There are no victims and no harm being done. It is all good.

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307041748' post='2249245']
Absolutely, people have no soul and people are animals. I am an atheist and this is the consequence of lacking a belief in gods.
China, Russia etc didn't really care about Atheism, but they saw religious organisations as competition for control on people that's why they got rid of them.
[/quote]

I honestly never have understood this perspective, to me it makes absolutely no sense [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307041748' post='2249245']
Absolutely, people have no soul and people are animals. I am an atheist and this is the consequence of lacking a belief in gods.
China, Russia etc didn't really care about Atheism, but they saw religious organisations as competition for control on people that's why they got rid of them.
[/quote]

Yeah... they didn't care about Atheism so much, they declare by fiat, by matter of law that the government was to be officially atheist, and made atheism the official propaganda of the state. They saw religion as a form of collective insanity, not just competition for power. They appointed themselves as 'servants' to rid the world of that collective insanity, to reign in the new enlighten age of atheism. Like it or not they thought themselves atheists, and they were atheists and they thought their policies to be the product and natural conclusion of atheism. Without objective truth their opinion of what atheism is is no more right or wrong than yours. Deal with it and come to terms with that reality.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307041748' post='2249245']
In my personal atheist opinion, condoms are a good thing and homosexuality is good for people that are that way inclinded. Both include people that are consentual and are using their free will. There are no victims and no harm being done. It is all good.
[/quote]

I am glad that you admit it is your opinion, and therefore could very well be as wrong as it could be right. Or in fact it would be neither because "wrong" and "right" technically do not exist, they are created according to a secular worldview.

Edited June 2, 2011 by HisChildForever

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307041748' post='2249245']
Yes, I absolutely agree, everyone is entitled to an opinion and opinions often differ. Within a democracy we take our individual opinions and vote for a party that we feel best represents us as an individual person.
After the vote, we then live by the rules governing our society, whether we agree with all of them or not[/quote]

There's no reason though why any must actually be bound to obey society.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307041748' post='2249245']Absolutely, people have no soul and people are animals. I am an atheist and this is the consequence of lacking a belief in gods.
China, Russia etc didn't really care about Atheism, but they saw religious organisations as competition for control on people that's why they got rid of them.
[/quote]

Also if you are going to admit that man is an animal, are you against murder? Are you willing to admit that without objective truth that since man is in your opinion just an animal that 'murder' in one society is not murder in another?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307041898' post='2249248']
I honestly never have understood this perspective, to me it makes absolutely no sense [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Because it defies logic and reason.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307041898' post='2249248']
I honestly never have understood this perspective, to me it makes absolutely no sense [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Which part didn't you understand Amppax, I am happy to elaborate, I don't expect you to agree but I am sure I can clarify this better.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307043176' post='2249257']
...and made atheism the official propaganda of the state.[/quote]
The only "message" behind atheism is "lack of belief in gods" Are they sending out messages that there are god theories, none with physical proof so we all ought to reserve judgment and not jump onto a belief????
Atheism isn't even "evangelistic" by this I mean it doesn't encourage people to spread the word and convert others. It is a personal lack of belief, a personal standpoint.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307043473' post='2249262']
There's no reason though why any must actually be bound to obey society.
[/quote]
Most societies implement consequences for those that don't obey the rules

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307043473' post='2249262']
Also if you are going to admit that man is an animal, are you against murder? Are you willing to admit that without objective truth that since man is in your opinion just an animal that 'murder' in one society is not murder in another?
[/quote]
I'm not so black and white about murder. I certainly don't take it to the degree that Catholics do. I'm for abortions in certain cases, I'm for Euthanasia, I'm for the death penalty. Being a fellow human myself, I do have a special affinity towards humans. Note: you don't often find lions hunt and kill other lions.

Edited June 2, 2011 by stevil

[stevil]

Can anyone define what objective morality is?

1. What is it?
2. Who is the authority?
3. How do people know what the objective morals are?

As an atheist I do not have a definition of this concept. If you want an open and honest debate about this, we need to be clear with regards to what it is that we are debating.