Fear of Atheism

Cypress said:
That's not good enough. It's only good enough for the self-interested and the cynical.

That is a strategy based on self-interest and self-preservation. Even animals follow Darwinian principles of mutually advantageous cooperation within their family, pack, or colony.

The morality taught in the Bible is not based on self-interest and mutual advantage.

Even the most cursory reading of the parable of the good Samaritan makes this obvious.

The New Testament ethos is based on the idea of extending universal love and self-sacrifice on behalf of others, even if it includes strangers, rivals, foreigners, competitors, and without any expectation of reciprocity or mutual advantage. And that is ultimately based on the belief that all human beings everywhere have an innate value because they are made in the image of God.
Click to expand...
everybody winning is not cynical.

cynical is "there must be war".
 
Cypress said:
That tells us nothing about why humans uniquely seem to perceive a moral law that often directly contradicts the 'survival of the fittest' natural law we see in Darwinian evolution. Whether it was caused by DNA or subatomic quantum fluctuations in the brain is just describing a process. It doesn't provide explanatory power as to why this happened.

I don't think they do. I think you would be shocked at the moral values of the Assyrians, the Cannanites, the Greeks of antiquity.

The pivot point in moral values seems to have originated around the known world about the same time in the late first millennium BCE, sometimes called the Axial Age transition.


I don't see any evidence of an infinite universe, or other sentient life forms, and until we have evidence I don't think it is productive to speculate.
Click to expand...
I need a description of a universe that isn't infinite.
I can't imagine an end--a boundary--with nothing on the other side of it, even if that something is an infinite void or vacuum.
Infinite just seems so much more imaginable, not that I can actually fully imagine it,
but it seems far less cryptic a thought than a finite boundary with nothing outside of it.

I have no way of disproving the theory,
so I can't say with certainty that it isn't so,
but a finite universe is simply nothing that I can imagine.

I think that possibly "survival of the fittest" stopped becoming evolution's default standard
when humans evolved into a social species that could be more efficient and productive
doing essential things collectively. Eventually, eschewing lone wolf inclinations and being
supportive of one's "pack" members became genetically more successful for survival.

The thing is, I don't care if I'm a totally material person or one with spiritual attributes.
Neither situation offends me or pleases me.
I go with the former because I don't think it's possible to have a non-material soul
and never once sense it.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
everybody winning is not cynical.

cynical is "there must be war".
Click to expand...
Social groupings do not provide the foundation for the objectivity of moral values and moral duties.

You are obviously a moral relativist, and that's your right.

Social groupings only provide a foundation for self-preservation and mutual advantage, which is nothing more than cold, hard Darwinian evolutionary principles put into action.
 
Cypress said:
Social groupings do not provide the foundation for the objectivity of moral values and moral duties.

You are obviously a moral relativist, and that's your right.

Social groupings only provide a foundation for self-preservation and mutual advantage, which is nothing more than cold, hard Darwinian evolutionary principles put into action.
Click to expand...
cooperation working provide the objectivity of cooperation.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
cooperation working provide the objectivity of cooperation.
Click to expand...
All social animals from monkeys to elephants cooperate for mutual advantage and self preservation.

That's cold, hard Darwinian evolution whose goal is self preservation of one's genetic information. That's not morality.

You as an atheist, have not been able to provide a foundation for objective moral duties and values.

If you want to worship Darwinian evolution, that's your choice.

Many people believe, or are searching, for meaning and purpose that doesn't involve self interest and self preservation.
 
Cypress said:
All social animals from monkeys to elephants cooperate for mutual advantage and self preservation.

That's cold, hard Darwinian evolution whose goal is self preservation of one's genetic information. That's not morality.

You as an atheist, have not been able to provide a foundation for objective moral duties and values.

If you want to worship Darwinian evolution, that's your choice.

Many people believe, or are searching, for meaning and purpose that doesn't involve self interest and self preservation.
Click to expand...
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. He created the Theory of Natural Selection. Neither are a theory of science.
 
Into the Night said:
It is learned.
Click to expand...

So if someone is not taught that murder is wrong, do you think they would easily murder without qualm?

Do we have any examples of society that never taught murder to be wrong? I can't think of any off hand but surely if morality is learned then we should see dramatically different moralities all across the globe throughout time.

Has there ever been a society in which lying was not considered bad or in which murder was not considered bad etc.?
 
Cypress said:
Social groupings do not provide the foundation for the objectivity of moral values and moral duties.
Click to expand...
Random words. No apparent coherency. Try English. It works much better.
Cypress said:
You are obviously a moral relativist, and that's your right.
Click to expand...
No such thing.
Cypress said:
Social groupings only provide a foundation for self-preservation and mutual advantage, which is nothing more than cold, hard Darwinian evolutionary principles put into action.
Click to expand...
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Your bullshit word salads don't work here.
Go learn English.
 
gmark77 said:
So if someone is not taught that murder is wrong, do you think they would easily murder without qualm?
Click to expand...
You answered your own question.
gmark77 said:
Do we have any examples of society that never taught murder to be wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes. Some Democrats, for example. Also gang members, which Democrats support, drug lords, which Democrats support, etc.
gmark77 said:
I can't think of any off hand but surely if morality is learned then we should see dramatically different moralities all across the globe throughout time.
Click to expand...
It is part of history.
gmark77 said:
Has there ever been a society in which lying was not considered bad or in which murder was not considered bad etc.?
Click to expand...
Yes. Democrats, for example.
 
Into the Night said:
You answered your own question.

Yes. Some Democrats, for example. Also gang members, which Democrats support, drug lords, which Democrats support, etc.

It is part of history.

Yes. Democrats, for example.
Click to expand...

OK, so we have established that you are not a serious discussion person on here. I have no problem ignoring you from here on out.
 
gmark77 said:
OK, so we have established that you are not a serious discussion person on here. I have no problem ignoring you from here on out.
Click to expand...
'we'?? Are you having another schizophrenic episode, Gunky?

If you want to remove yourself from the conversation, fine. Doesn't change anything though.

:hearnoevil::seenoevil::bdh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top