|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:12:14 [Permalink]
|
ChristianSkeptic: However, such people are operational atheist, not Christians.
@tomic: Oh now isn't that convenient!!
ChristianSkeptic: The reason I did not elucidate on this point is that the issue here is the thought experiment for atheists.
As for a more detailed response, since morality is part and parcel of the Christian faith, I would state that a Christian does not have the epistemological freedom to choose evil. In contrast, an atheist has the epistemological freedom to choose evil. As I like to put it, the only ism that contradicts atheism is theism.
|
 |
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:13:19 [Permalink]
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by @tomic:
[B]I should have brought this up before... I have seen this thought experiment before. This exact same thing.
Know what I mean ChristianSkeptic ; )
ChristianSkeptic: No, since I have not seen this approach before. But I would like to visit the website address you are alluding to.
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:16:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Legomancer:
Is it so hard to believe that someone could not believe in god and yet have a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?
Umm... Maybe you aren't aware, but any true bible believer must already hold that view. The bible tells us that all mankind possesses an inner light from God that tells them His will. Unfortunately the bible says that we are very good at ignoring our consciences, and carrying out evil regardless. That is what the whole account of Noah's flood was really about.
quote:
Originally posted by Legomancer:
In fact, perhaps an atheist has a better sense of morals because his belief in doing the right thing stems from an actual desire to do the right thing as opposed to fear that he will be sent to hell.
I agree, there are many atheists who are far more "moral" than many "Christians", I know. As for this being out of some sort of wish to do the right thing, then I would also agree. As for this being better or superior to Christianity, that is where I strongly disagree.
The idea that Christians want to be moral because we do not wish to go to hell is one of the largest, and most backwards of all misconceptions about Christianity ever perpetuated throughout mankind. The biblical law is meant to point out our sin and condemn us. Christ's finished work is meant to save us from this HOLY condemnation. True Christians strive to follow God's laws out of gratitude for this wonderful gift.
If we follow what each of us believes to be "right", then what does that say about someone like Jeffery Dahmer or Adolf Hitler? Our intellectual problem with atheists is that they possess no rational basis for a morality in the first place, not that you do not possess it. You say your reaction would be more realistic than ChristianSkeptic's "fictional president". Unfortunately Legomancer, you seem to fail in realizing that many, far too real, political leaders, have carried out actions far worse than the one in his example.
quote:
Originally posted by Legomancer:
I'm sorry, but Christians do not hold the monopoly on morals. In fact, as trite as the argument is, a lot more blood has been spilled, pain has inflected, and hatred been spewed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism.
I'm sorry, but you do not know just how "trite" that argument is. First though, we will talk about your assertion that Christians "do not have a monopoly on morals". When did we ever say that? We are only asking people to consider what it means to be atheists.
I contend that morality has no logical basis, unless morality is something intrinsic, designed to be a part of our lives. I believe a design implies a creator or God. If on the other hand, you do not believe there is any universal basis for morality, that morality is something that each of us decides for ourselves, then anything should be permitted through anarchy or mob rule. Do any of you understand why this is a big question for ChristianSkeptic and myself.
Now as for all that blood spilled by religion. Are you blind to the fact that atheism is one of those religions? If you wanna see which overall belief system has spilt more blood, inflicted pain, and spewed more hatred, Christianity or Atheism, it is without a doubt atheism.
Religious persecutions a |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Jacobson wrote:
>>The fact of the matter remains that in order to arrive at an answer for this debate, we must logically think out each of the questions. I know it is maddening, but maybe that is because atheism is an illogical assumption in the first place. We ask again, and I ask that you thoughtfully reply, what is the logical basis for universal morality under atheism?<<
The logical basis for a universal morality is that it works. We are a social species. We never would have made it this far if we behaved in a manner that was detrimental to our survival. Morality is by agreement. That doesn't mean most of us are not inherently moral. It simply means that as a culture we agree on what that morality is. Atheists and Theists tend to agree on the basics. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Why? Because, if freely done, those activities would create an environment that would surly threaten the species as a whole. (I'm not saying it hasn't been tried... ) We have laws to deal with those who break what is essentially the contract we call morality. Laws are by agreement.
I am saying that morality serves us. If you need the threat of hellfire to keep you from killing your neighbor you are probably sociopathic. If you are an atheist and you kill your neighbor, you too are probably sociopathic. Killing and stealing are, in both theistic and non theist circles, frowned upon.
Species do what works. When they stop doing what works they become extinct.
Kil
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:19:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil:
Morality is by agreement. That doesn't mean most of us are not inherently moral. It simply means that as a culture we agree on what that morality is. Atheists and Theists tend to agree on the basics. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Why? Because, if freely done, those activities would create an environment that would surly threaten the species as a whole. (I'm not saying it hasn't been tried... ) We have laws to deal with those who break what is essentially the contract we call morality. Laws are by agreement.
Wow, first may I say that you express your views in a very eloquent fashion. But I am forced to ask you some questions regarding them.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but you say that morality is decided by what would threaten our species as a whole. From my point of view, as I applied that logic to various situations, I got depressed. Does this mean that there was nothing inherently "wrong" with the Japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor, except for the fact that actions like it don't work, or don't help humanity as a species?
My second question is: Why is the survival of humanity as a whole species important to an atheist in the first place?
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:21:13 [Permalink]
|
ChristianSkeptic: No, since I have not seen this approach before. But I would like to visit the website address you are alluding to.
Unfortunately I have not cruised such sites in a while but your experiment really does sound like an old one to me.
How's this for an experiment:
Let's imagine a state of America where there were Bibles in the majority of homes. Let's say it was the 1980s.
Now let's imagine we have a president who is the worst kind of person imaginable. For not only is the president a Christian, the President is also an economist.
Let's call this President Ronald Reagan.
His policies called for welfare to be cut and for mental patients to be released to live on the streets. In effect they were liqidated.
The dilemma for the christian is that on what basis would he object to his christian president and christian public opinion in order to stop this liquidation of the poor and sick? Afterall, if God exists you have the Bible to guide you and since this is a matter of public/economic policy all you have to follow in your decision-making are your religious beliefs.
In this great Christian society where were the objections????
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:23:44 [Permalink]
|
Many of us have, I am sure, been subjected to the Christian slander of being told that Atheists lack morality. Since morals come from a God that we do not believe in then why not murder and rape to our hearts content?
Morals, of course, do not come from any gods (and lucky for us as there don't happen to be any.) They can be explained with the use of very simple Darwinian evolution.
Most prey animals, and for that matter many predators, live in groups. "There is safety in numbers." For a group to operate efficiently requires a "group dynamic." A set of animal behaviors that bonds the group together. This could be as simple as all the sardines in a school turning at the same time or as complicated as the order in which a herd of elephants gets to drink from a water hole.
Animals that fail to follow the group dynamic are forced to leave the group either through there own actions (swimming in the wrong direction) or the group forcibly ejects them (for the group's own safety.) No longer a
member of the group they are now vulnerable to attack and deprived of the opportunity to mate. This is what Charles Darwin called natural selection.
Scientific theories must have a certain degree of predictability. That is, if your theory is correct, you should be able to make predictions of results that you will be able to observe in the "real" world. I suggest that we give the Christians the benefit of the doubt and treat their theory in a completely scientific fashion.
Theory One: Morals are the dictates of God to mankind.
Prediction of observable results. (Please note that in order not to taint these predictions with my own prejudices I have taken them directly from Fundamentalist Christians).
Morals are reflections of Gods will.
They are unchangeable over time (quite literally carved in stone.)
They are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Morals are objective and never subjective.
Theory Two: Morals are the name of the human group dynamic and are subject to purely Darwinian evolution.
Prediction of observable results.
All five groups of African great apes (we being #5) should have a basic shared group dynamic.
All humans should have a common ancestral group dynamic, which has changed over time (evolved)
The group dynamic would evolve to fit the environmental niche that a given population found itself in.
Example: you would expect two groups in communication living in similar environments (say city dwellers in New York and London) to have remarkable similar (though not identical) moralities. Where a long isolated group (say New Guinea tribesmen) would be expected to have evolved a morality better suited to local conditions.
I would suggest that Theory #2 more closely fits the observable facts.
Animals that feel the need to conform to the group dynamic—that have what we call a conscience—and can bond with their herd members (non-sexual love/friendship) stand a much better chance of passing their genes on. (Again no need for Divine intervention)
There have been major studies of wild dogs, sea lions, elephants and gorillas that show that when a member of one group tries to join another the alpha animal will force it to conform to the new dynamic. This forcing may be through aggressive displays and, sometimes, actual violence. More likely the newcomer will not be accepted (for perhaps the same reasons that its original pack did not accept it) and it is driven off to die. This dark side of nature "red in tooth and claw" actually protects the group as a whole. Members of a pack of wild dogs that did not conform to the group's dynamic jeopardize the procuring of food. Intolerance is necessary for the group's well being as a whole.
This Darwinian behavior of intolerance which is so important to wild dogs and hyenas is precisely that which is demonstrated by Evangelical Christians. It would have been an extremely important as a survival technique in the days when humans were hunter-gatherers traveling in small tribes.
Richard Dawkins likes to mention that the acquiring of a large brain was an evolutionary adaptation for hunting that had wonderful side effects. Once we had large brains we could not only hunt better but we could communicate and invent agriculture and science and art.
One of the unexpected advantages evolving a large brain has given us is writing. But this, for some people, is a two edged sword.
Writing enabled us to record the group dynamic (morals) and that way everyone in the group would know just what was expected of them, the group would function better and advance.
Now here's the problem. Once the group dynamic was written down it became a physical object and not just an idea any more. As a physical object it could not evolve. It remained the same even as the environment changed.
The environment changed as another side effect of our having evolved large brains.
When the group dynamic was changed from an evolving idea to an artifact our species was sitting in the desert staring at a campfire of camel dung. Now we are floating around in a space station staring at a computer monitor, but we have the exact same un-evolved artifact.
Fortunately most people in the world have used their large brains to continue to socially evolve. We might still have a little trouble with people who are different from us, but we are getting over that. Our brains will show us that the entire planet is now our herd.
Evangelists were an important part of our evolutionary past. Perhaps, if they can ever divest themselves of these silly religions, they will continue to hold the social structure together.
If not, we can continue to evolve without them.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:25:44 [Permalink]
|
Once again, Jacobsen, you are falling into the same trap that Christian Skeptic is in. Since you are theist, you can't imagine what would drive an atheist. You can't imagine how we can be moral or have a desire to sustain the species.
quote:
fact of the matter remains that in order to arrive at an answer for this debate, we must logically think out each of the questions. I know it is maddening, but maybe that is because atheism is an illogical assumption in the first place. We ask again, and I ask that you thoughtfully reply, what is the logical basis for universal morality under atheism?
Again, this HAS been answered, just you and CS don't accept the answers because they don't jibe with your assumptions of what atheists believe. The logical basis is that we live in a society, under God or not, that must have certain standards in order for people to live together. In addition, even atheists recognize that killing someone or stealing from them simply isn't right. Why do we believe this? Well, I personally do not want to be killed or have things stolen from me, so I presume others feel the same. I'm sorry if that doesn't seem logical to you.
As for the website you posted, yes I've seen that argument before. "You don't know everything in the universe, so it is foolish to say there is no god." That's just plain silly. Incidentally, I am a 7 foot tall blue rabbit that communicates through banjo playing. Since you've no thorough knowledge of the universe, I will expect you to believe me.
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:27:22 [Permalink]
|
Kil: The logical basis for a universal morality is that it works.
ChristianSkeptic (CS): An appeal to pragmatism as a logical basis for morality is the logical fallacy of non-sequtur.
Pragmatism is neither logical nor universal because it does not follow that just because a certain moral system works for one cultural that it works for others.
In fact, one culture's moral system can work, and thus be morally justified, if it so chooses to enhance its well-being and chances of survival at the expense of another.
Kil: …We never would have made it this far if we behaved in a manner that was detrimental to our survival.
CS: This is a question begging (Who is we?) gross generalization. If you mean by we, all of humanity then it's a gross generalization since humanity would still exist even if (God forbid) all of Western civilization disappeared.
If you simply meant the U.S. then your statement is a hasty generalization. Since all of humanity is not dependent on America's survival.
In fact, world history shows that the relative decline of one nation actually benefits another. For example, if the U.S., for some reason, could not produce wheat for the world market, then the price of wheat would increase to the benefit of wheat farmers in other countries such as the Argentina and the EU.
Kil: …Morality is by agreement…
CS: This is the logical fallacy of agrumentun ad populum. Morality by agreement is no more than public opinion, which is subject to change.
For example, U.S. public sentiment has changed from the enslavement of West Africans to preferential policies for government designated victim groups.
Kil: Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Why? Because, if freely done, those activities would create an environment that would surly threaten the species as a whole.
CS: I guess by species you mean the United States.
If so,then, Kil, how do you account for the amazing paradox that is the American experience?
The paradox being that despite the obvious substantial wanton disregard of the rule of law in America this country is still the most powerful economic and military force in the world.
In comparing the United States with the other major industrialized nations, Andrew L. Shapiro writes, “We're number one in billionaires and we're number one in the percentage of population who have been the victim of a crime…The American paradox continues; in the words of one recent study ‘the wealthiest society in the world has failed to provide a relatively safe society; instead it has an appallingly high level of crime...'
Shapiro continues, “We're also number one in adult and children homicide, sexual assault, attempted burglary, theft from car, assault and drunk driving fatalities. [See We're Number One: Where America Stands-and Falls-in the New World Order by Andrew L. Shapiro 1992 pages 117-140.
It is interesting to note that at the time the book was published in May 1992 the longest non-inflationary peacetime expansion in American history was just really getting underway despite all the crime.
It appears this country can not only survive but also thrive despite the undermining of the rule of law. Therefore, murder and stealing does not “threaten the species as a whole.”
Kil: (I'm not saying it hasn't been tried... )
CS: It is being tried with quite a lot of success. The fact is that thirty percent of the murders cases reported in 1988 were not solved…in absolute terms, it means we have the most murders in the major industrialized world at large…with about five thousand from 1988 alone [Interpol: As quoted by author Andrew L. Shapiro p.122]
Kil: We have laws to deal with those who break what is essentially the contract we call morality.
CS: To say that “we have laws to deal with those…” is really an appeal to force which is not a logical basis for morality.
Kil: …I am saying that morality serves us.
CS: However, your fellow atheist can just as easily assert |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:28:35 [Permalink]
|
I couldn't help but notice that the term "universal morality" has been thrown around a lot here. There is no universal morality. You can say that murder is bad, but here in the United States the government regularly puts people to death. You can argue that these people deserve it but there is no escaping the fact that it is still murder. On top of this people actually believe that this practice is one that will make our society better and maybe more moral.
Some people disagree with this and there is an example that within our own society we have differing ideas on what is moral and what is not.
Is murder bad? Depends on who you ask.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Ah yes, thank you Slater, I now understand. The Nazis were actually “good” people that were trying to get rid of those “pesky Jews” that they thought were messing up our "evolutionary success". I suppose it's a shame their ideas don't work, but hey, they had "good" intentions. Anyways, if evolution is your mystical reason to be a moral person, I believe that is humanism and not atheism.
And Legomancer, where do you get off saying that I believe that morality comes from God. I have been putting up with it until now, but it is starting to tick me off. I said in my very first post, that morality is decided by societies through consensus. What we are arguing about is that I believe God provides the basis for universal morality and that atheism, by definition, cannot provide this. The way you all keep on misrepresenting my view on this matter, seems to show that you are all reacting to my arguments very dogmatically. If you cannot reasonably debate this topic, then I would suggest you don't debate it at all.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Atheism is a belief that there is no God. In order to remain an atheist and hold that morals are a result of evolution would be the same as admitting that you are in bondage to your "evolutionary" instincts. In that case murderers and other "moral deviants" would be the ultimate "freethinkers", not being held back by silly notions of religion or morality. If on the other hand, you disagree with the previous statement, then what right do you have to criticize Christians for following religion? We would just be following our evolutionary instincts that cause us to believe in a God, and thus save the majority of mankind from wasting his time thinking about evolutionary self-paradoxes.
In any rate, "evolutionary morality" is not universal morality. Evolution does whatever it needs to "progress". The strong survive on the failures of the weak. Universal morality implies a moral code that is unchanging.
(Oh and by the way, don't bring up how the bible's moral codes change throughout the book. First off I don't believe that. Second its not fundamentally related to this discussion. Many people believe in a God, if not the God of the bible. And third, if you want to discuss it, then bring it up in the religion section.)
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:31:38 [Permalink]
|
Yes, the Nazis believed that they were behaving morally. In fact they considered themselves to be good Christians.
However the rest of the "herd"—that is the rest of Western civilization—considered their behavior not to be conducive with the lives of the group as a whole (The people of planet Earth) and destroyed them.
Simple Darwinian animal behavior.
A wolf starts attacking other members of the pack, the pack as a whole will turn on it, driving it off or killing it. The offending wolf does not get the chance to pass on it's genes.
"Moral deviants", as you call them, are not prized as the ultimate "freethinkers". They are excluded from the group.
Works basically the same for any animal (it's not just humanism) from a hostile Naked Mole Rat up to Hitler.
It's a much simpler explanation than an invisible super being in the sky commanding us. There is no need to resort to un-provable claims of the supernatural.
Yes, you are mistaken—Atheism is not the belief that God doesn't exist. That statement presupposes the existence of a god and makes the Atheist one who denies the truth.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Most of the Atheists I've spoken with lack a god belief because they have never been presented with convincing evidence to support one.
You are also mistaken about evolution. There is nothing mystical about it in the least. It is straight forward nuts and bolts stuff. Many people even make evolution their hobby and can control it at will. I'm referring to animal breeders. You may have seen that tiny little dog selling tacos on TV. You may have also seem the movies with huge slobbering Beethoven. Both are dogs, both have the same ancestors, yet you would be hard pressed to find two more different critters. The taco dog couldn't survive in the snows of Switzerland any more than Beethoven could in the Mexican desert. Do-it-yourself evolution.
You are also mistaken when you equate evolution with progress. It has nothing to do with progress. Evolution only means change. Changes that work out—the animal can reproduce, have children who carry on these changed genes. Changes that don't work out— no offspring.
Pretty basic stuff. Before you knock it any more might I suggest that you research exactly what evolution is? Remember what that great philosopher Felix Unger said about assuming things. You might want to try Richard Dawkins before you bother with Philip Johnson.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:32:56 [Permalink]
|
I probably know more about evolution then you do, JohnPaul. Where do you atheists get the idea that every Christian is some weirdo who spends his whole time speaking falsities about the evolution?
I said evolution is your mystical reason for morality. In other words, you are applying some magical properties to a scientific hypothesis and using this as a basis for subjective morality. In other words you are turning evolution into your God.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:34:44 [Permalink]
|
I wouldn't doubt that you know more than me about a great many subjects. However, since you have made repeated mistakes about basic evolutionary science in your writings, I hesitate to say that this isn't one of them.
By all means doubt the theory of evolution. Be skeptical of it. But first find out what it is that you are being skeptical of. If everything that you know about evolution comes from Christian apologetics it might give you a more realistic view to find out what the people who are actually doing the research have to say.
Also in your writings you demonstrate a distorted (but common) Christian view of Atheists. In some other discussion here at SFN you talk about an Atheists attitudes but the person you describe is a Nihilist. (All Nihilists are Atheists but only a very few Atheists are Nihilists.)
Atheists do not posses a belief in any gods or in the supernatural for that matter.
As for the morality of Atheist vs. Christian lets look at the numbers (you can find the exact figures through the FBI web site)
Atheist/Agnostics comprise 11% of the population of the United States. That makes them the second largest "religious" group here (Roman Catholics are #1 at 13%). That's a lot of people. To put it into perspective, there are more Atheists in the USA than there are Jews in the world. You would expect that many people to be all over the map when it comes to morals. Or by you prejudices you should expect them to be the worst.
In divorces Atheists tie with Catholics for the lowest (per capita) rate.
Methodists were the highest.
Prisoners in the US jails finds that Quakers just beat out Atheists for the lowest per capita of convicted criminals. Southern Baptist has the dubious honor of having the largest percentage of their congregation behind bars.
Last year no Atheist/Agnostics was convicted of murder.
Are there mitigating circumstances that I'm not considering? Probably, but my point is that the real world doesn't reflect your accusation of lack of moral character.
One strange thing I have come across a number of times through the years is the number of "Christian weirdo's" who equate the theory of evolution as being an Atheist credo. The accusation that we turn evolution into our God as though it were some "belief" system.
Having written articles on evolution in the past I have found myself bombarded with E-mails trying to "save" me from this heresy.
Let me assure you that I do not now, nor have I ever, known any Atheist who became or remained an Atheist because of the theory of evolution.
If the theory of evolution is shown to be incorrect and is discarded I have every confidence that another scientific theory, and not an archaic metaphysical one, would replace it.
I wonder why they never accuse us of making Copernicus our religion?
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
-since you have made repeated mistakes about basic evolutionary science in your writings, I hesitate to say that this isn't one of them.
By all means doubt the theory of evolution. Be skeptical of it. But first find out what it is that you are being skeptical of. If everything that you know about evolution comes from Christian apologetics it might give you a more realistic view to find out what the people who are actually doing the research have to say.
If you are referring to the mistakes I made in my email to Tom Huxley, then you are correct, I made many. My mistakes concerned Information Theory and its version of entropy and how they apply to evolution. If you are aware of any other specific mistakes that I have made concerning evolution, then don't hesitate to call me on them. And just for the sake of argument, I wouldn't doubt that you know more than me about a great many subjects.
As for my reliance on "Christian apologetics" for my knowledge of evolution, I do admit that as a child, I fell for it. In the last few years though, I learned that the bible does not conflict with the basic idea of evolution. Then, awhile later I gave the theory a second chance, and I more thoroughly checked out its "evidences". It was then that I learned that much of Christianity spreads falsities concerning the "theory". But this did not cover the basic stupidity that is evolution, and I still hold that it is an extremely weak hypothesis.
I am actually writing up a piece that details my problems with evolution. And fixing any mistakes I made concerning information theory. When it is done I will email it to Tommy Huxley.
quote:
In some other discussion here at SFN you talk about an Atheists attitudes but the person you describe is a Nihilist. (All Nihilists are Atheists but only a very few Atheists are Nihilists.)
No, I say that any philosophy of atheism ultimately must lead Nihilism, and that the two are in the end identical. Nihilists are just more bold and think out their Atheism to its logical end. In my mind, the difference between an atheist of your persuasion and an atheist of the Nihilist persuasion is that, at least, the latter is intellectually honest.
As for mistakes I make concerning different philosophies and viewpoints, I am not perfect. Just because I say a certain thing about my beliefs or others', does not mean that I believe it. Sometimes it is just a mistake and nothing more. I am not any kind of a professional debater, nor have I ever studied its art. So if I make a slip of the mind and type something that was not intended, I would expect some understanding from morally minded individuals.
quote:
-my point is that the real world doesn't reflect your accusation of lack of moral character.
Once again, I am being attacked on something I clearly stated earlier, a number of times. I believe there are many Atheists who are more moral than many Christians. I am one of the first people you'll find who will stand up with you and criticize them. But the "numbers" of who practices personal morality is not relevant to this discussion. In our nation's past, Christians were far more moral than they are today. We are asking what provides a universal value structure for an atheist. The only way I ca |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
