A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

This_person

Well-Known Member
It may seem like obsession, but I'm simply enjoying the exchange. Remember that my position is skepticism as opposed to atheism.
I'm enjoying the discussion as well. It helps to clarify (sometimes, and sometimes cloud :lol:) my beliefs.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Circumstantial, tangential evidence. The same can be said of an intelligent creator.

The big bang theory predicts many observable things about the universe - its expansion, the nature of cosmic microwave background, the quantities of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium

so the implied evidence supporting the theory of a "big bang" also support equally those theories of an intelligent designer.

No, because the intelligent designer claims have the added burden of explaining the designer's origin and the designer's motive for creation. Which leads to my next point...

Yes, it then begs the question of the creator's creator, composition, etc. But, that doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't imply it can't be, just because it causes more questions.

Those additional questions reduce the likelihood of the creator explanation being true.

That depends entirely on what he believes will please his God. :lol:

True, and that's the whole problem - anyone can believe anything about what would please gods. And anyone can make any sort of claim to others about what pleases gods.

Virtually all religions expect someone to focus on the greater good for all, above themselves.

And virtually all have some version of what Christianity inadvisedly calls the Golden Rule. The point is that we cannot assume that what pleases gods constitutes a "greater good." That's not even getting into the whole problem of assuming the existence of gods themselves or assuming anything about their natures.

Some would say that the basis is "human nature", not something taught through a religion. I would say that "human nature" is inherent because that's how we're designed.

We cannot assume that design would be the only explanation.

I would also say that society, especially American society being Christian in the vast majority, is based upon Christian values - so even the non-religious are influenced by Christian values through constant exposure.

I am deeply skeptical of the "Christian values" buzz phrase, because it's thrown around by talking heads and politicians as though it's self-evident. Many religions' histories include atrocities grounded in the religions' doctrines, and Christianity is not alone in this. I'm not saying that Christianity's history is worse or even better than other religions. I'm saying that we cannot assume that "Christian values" always means "love your neighbor" - Christianity does not have an exclusive title to that laudable concept. I'm also saying that when a religion's scripture appears to endorse atrocities, we cannot treat the claim of "values" as always being laudable.

To obliterate ourselves and innocent others in the name of religion seems counter to the basic understanding of virtually all religions.

How does that square with such things as the genocide at Jericho, where Joshua and his troops were allegedly acting on divine orders?

The average atheist judges the average person of faith as being a bit ignorant, or at least easily mislead.

While I strongly condemn that behavior, I also emphasize that most of the atheists I've encountered do not do this. It may seem otherwise only because the most extreme members of any movement or social group tend also to be the most vocal ones.

The average person of faith feels compelled to tell that average atheist how they'll "burn in hell", or some other such judgement.

Again, that is much worse than an atheist calling a religious person ignorant, because the person of faith is essentially saying that it's acceptable for someone to suffer for eternity.

If someone is an atheist, then they have no worries of God, because He doesn't exist.

The issue isn't about "God or no god," because different religions make different claims about supernatural entities. There's no reason to treat the idea of a single god as having a greater likelihood than any other idea of the supernatural.

If someone is a person of faith, they need not worry about there being no after-life, because it's as clear to me as my hand before my face that there is one.

Clear how? What evidence do you have?

Each side has a belief of what will happen, and they're both equally abhorant to the other.

I stress that the two sides are not atheism versus theism, but skepticism on one side and all the supernatural claims by all religions on the other. Christianity is merely in the same boat as all the other religions.

What would be so abhorrent about no supernatural existence? What is so abhorrent or offensive about skepticism regarding the claims of all religions?

Regardless of whether I believe in God or not, if the truth is that He's out there, He's out there. If the truth is that I'm wrong and He's not, I'm wrong and He's not. Truth is not swayed by people's beliefs.

That's actually an argument for skepticism.

I only see there being no real consequence for actions if the truth is that we're just amino acid mutations infesting a small rock in a yo-yo of a universe that continually expands and contracts.

I'm talking about natural consequences, action and reaction. I'm talking about the idea that our actions can have positive or negative effects, on ourselves and/or on others. True morality means that one cares about how one's actions affect others. I'm not talking about "consequences" as a synonym for punishment. Acting based on fear of punishment is not true morality, because it's merely self-protection without regard for others. Any absolutist ideology would inherently conflict with true morality, because one either values the ideology more or one values other people more.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about natural consequences, action and reaction. I'm talking about the idea that our actions can have positive or negative effects, on ourselves and/or on others. True morality means that one cares about how one's actions affect others. I'm not talking about "consequences" as a synonym for punishment. Acting based on fear of punishment is not true morality, because it's merely self-protection without regard for others. Any absolutist ideology would inherently conflict with true morality, because one either values the ideology more or one values other people more.
It seems to me we basically agree that an intelligent creator/designer is a possibility, but from a scientific point of view one is (surprisingly :lol:) less likely than not {and, from a religious point of view, one is equally surprisingly far more likely}. Since there is neither proof of an intelligent hand specifically designing our lives and universe, nor of any other form or method of growth to our universe, we can agree (I think) that the bulk of what we're saying is repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

However, where we're talking about consequences of actions, I must disagree that there's a "consequence" of any kind to anyone for not acting in a moral manner if one sees things in an atheistic way. What would that consequence be? The conscience would simply be another controllable set of chemicals in one's mind. Morality would have no basis other than what that particular individual believes it to be. There would be no collective mind, no long term accountability to someone, no reason to do things "right" in private, etc. "Character" would only be perception. "Morality" would be a meaningless concept.
 

tommyjones

New Member
God Tonio... You see obsessed with "This person." Isn't it more interesting how 2A has created Marie, to be more of a zealot than he is? :cartwheel

and dont forget, italian and Starman and This Person are all him too.....

when we had karma he bombed me with about 20 MPDs, so i am guessing most of these right wing igits are him......
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
and dont forget, italian and Starman and This Person are all him too.....

when we had karma he bombed me with about 20 MPDs, so i am guessing most of these right wing igits are him......
Speaking for myself, I can tell you that I signed any and all karma to you. And, I'm no MPD. And, I have no MPDs. More than likely, no one else needed one. You have an inate ability to piss people off, so those were probably about 20 separate people, not MPDs.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Speaking for myself, I can tell you that I signed any and all karma to you. And, I'm no MPD. And, I have no MPDs. More than likely, no one else needed one. You have an inate ability to piss people off, so those were probably about 20 separate people, not MPDs.

Why couldn't you just leave it alone? I liked it better when he thought someone was that obsessed with him. :lmao:
 

tommyjones

New Member
Why couldn't you just leave it alone? I liked it better when he thought someone was that obsessed with him. :lmao:

2ndA was, and TP still is, even if they aren't the same person, i had to put them both on ignore because they followed me so much.

TP still replys to my posts even though i told him i put him on ignore months ago...
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
2ndA was, and TP still is, even if they aren't the same person, i had to put them both on ignore because they followed me so much.

TP still replys to my posts even though i told him i put him on ignore months ago...

I realize these things get can get ugly. I am deeply passionate about how I feel, but I hope I always come off as respectful. We may disagree, but we do deserve respect.
 

tommyjones

New Member
I realize these things get can get ugly. I am deeply passionate about how I feel, but I hope I always come off as respectful. We may disagree, but we do deserve respect.

i feel the same way. things have only gotten out of hand for me once or twice, and 2nda and tp seemed to take it much more personally than i did.
i am only looking for enlightenment, and while chrisitanity isn't fulfilling to me, the christian ideals are. the whole 'the book tells all' just doesn't sit with me
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
"However, where we're talking about consequences of actions, I must disagree that there's a "consequence" of any kind to anyone for not acting in a moral manner if one sees things in an atheistic way. What would that consequence be? The conscience would simply be another controllable set of chemicals in one's mind. Morality would have no basis other than what that particular individual believes it to be. There would be no collective mind, no long term accountability to someone, no reason to do things "right" in private, etc. "Character" would only be perception. "Morality" would be a meaningless concept."


Whew! I like that reasoning, or rationale, whichever way you'd like to express it. :yay: A while back, we were discussing the relative merit(s) of religion versus a person's own innate set of moral values, as to their capability to choose what was right and what was wrong. As used in, or as a basis for one's own personal creed for conducting their own life, and how everyone else should pursue their aims in living their own lives.

Sure wish I'd seen this arguement made back then.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
i feel the same way. things have only gotten out of hand for me once or twice, and 2nda and tp seemed to take it much more personally than i did.
i am only looking for enlightenment, and while chrisitanity isn't fulfilling to me, the christian ideals are. the whole 'the book tells all' just doesn't sit with me

I've always contended that the Bible doesn't give us all the answers. It does give us what we need to know its purpose and God's purpose.

I spent my entire childhood having these discussions with my dad (wno doesn't believe). Amazingly enough he didn't sway me from believing. So I am kind of used to being told I'm wrong and there is no God...

My enlightenment comes from looking at life, nature and the world around me; not from any church or other person. Things work too good to be convinced things occurs randomly. I don't think there are any words I am going to say or write that you haven't already heard or considered on your own. So you probably wont get it from me.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why couldn't you just leave it alone? I liked it better when he thought someone was that obsessed with him. :lmao:
:lol: It apparently makes him feel better to think it's one obsessed fool, than in knowing that the majority of people dislike his manner of speaking. As shown in his response to you regarding this, he still thinks people are obsessed with him.

Ego is an ugly thing :lmao:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Whew! I like that reasoning, or rationale, whichever way you'd like to express it. :yay: A while back, we were discussing the relative merit(s) of religion versus a person's own innate set of moral values, as to their capability to choose what was right and what was wrong. As used in, or as a basis for one's own personal creed for conducting their own life, and how everyone else should pursue their aims in living their own lives.

Sure wish I'd seen this arguement made back then.
Thank you! The response I usually get to this is that atheists are (in their mind) at least as moral as people of faith, and how dare I say otherwise. :lol: Then, the normal response is to go on a list of things people have done wrong in the name of religion (always leaving out things like 9/11, though, interestingly - it's always only the Christians who've been bad). In other words, they miss the point entirely.
 

wxtornado

The Other White Meat
Things work too good to be convinced things occurs randomly.

This is that "God of the gaps" argument that I will never understand. (And psyops, I hope I never have to remind you that I respect your stance, even if I disagree.)

I, for instance, remain consistent that nature is naturally explained and therefore within the grasp of man to understand, as opposed to you, the theist, which purports to explain the known by suggesting it comes not only from an unknown -- but ultimately unknowable source. Somehow, it's easier for you to understand if you inject a deity into the equation, while I think it just muddys it up.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is that "God of the gaps" argument that I will never understand. (And psyops, I hope I never have to remind you that I respect your stance, even if I disagree.)

I, for instance, remain consistent that nature is naturally explained and therefore within the grasp of man to understand, as opposed to you, the theist, which purports to explain the known by suggesting it comes not only from an unknown -- but ultimately unknowable source. Somehow, it's easier for you to understand if you inject a deity into the equation, while I think it just muddys it up.
First, I'm not trying to speak for PsyOps, just myself. I believe that you are most always respectful. I hope you find me the same.

And, still not speaking for him, but for myself; the idea isn't that it's not understandable by man, but that it's far too unlikely to have happened in a random fashion. We can see how it all works - figure out the mechanisms of tornados, indigestion, the tides, the planetary motions, the quantum physics of the atom, etc. But, the idea that all of the different life and their symbiotic relationships could have just randomly occurred, especially from just one single super-magical cell, is just too fantastical to have been random. Negate randomness, and the only thing left is some cognicant designer.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
It seems to me we basically agree that an intelligent creator/designer is a possibility, but from a scientific point of view one is (surprisingly :lol:) less likely than not {and, from a religious point of view, one is equally surprisingly far more likely}.

The religious point of view doesn't care whether its opinion is supported by empirical evidence, so its view on the likelihood is irrelevant.

Since there is neither proof of an intelligent hand specifically designing our lives and universe, nor of any other form or method of growth to our universe, we can agree (I think) that the bulk of what we're saying is repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The point is not about proof, since nothing in the real world can be proved with complete certainty. The point is that scientific theories that are substantiated by extensive evidence, such as evolution, allow for high degrees of certainty.

However, where we're talking about consequences of actions, I must disagree that there's a "consequence" of any kind to anyone for not acting in a moral manner if one sees things in an atheistic way. What would that consequence be? The conscience would simply be another controllable set of chemicals in one's mind. Morality would have no basis other than what that particular individual believes it to be. There would be no collective mind, no long term accountability to someone, no reason to do things "right" in private, etc. "Character" would only be perception. "Morality" would be a meaningless concept.

My use of the word "consequence" was perhaps a poor choice, since it may give the false impression that I'm talking about punishment. I was really talking about the effects of one's actions on the self and on others.

Having a natural origin for the human moral sense would not invalidate the sense at all, because we would still experience it and use it to guide our actions. We know that love has a biological origin, but that knowledge doesn't prevent us from experiencing love.

The whole point of emotional maturity is to value the rightness of helping others and the wrongness of harming others. A person with this maturity would want to do the right thing regardless of any accountability. Sure, plenty of people do not value the human interaction principle of morality, but notions of accountability would not change their minds. And that doesn't change the fact that humans are capable of doing the right thing because it's the right thing.

Would you explain what you mean by doing the right thing in private? Do you mean doing the right thing even when no one is watching? If so, that's part of my point about doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Or are you talking about some notion of right and wrong that is isolated from the effects of actions on others?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Things work too good to be convinced things occurs randomly.

But, the idea that all of the different life and their symbiotic relationships could have just randomly occurred, especially from just one single super-magical cell, is just too fantastical to have been random. Negate randomness, and the only thing left is some cognicant designer.

Those are simply subjective assertions, which is my whole point. The factual accuracy of any explanation for any natural event has nothing to do with how fantastic the explanation seems. Evolution may seem like design, but that's only because both evolution and human design involve complex systems that deal with the same physical constraints. Evolution looks like design because humans are designers. The alternative to design is not randomness but causation.
 
Top