I never did get what makes some people think atheists are immoral.They do it through the use of an inforal logical fallacy: they assume that morality implies religion and religious faith. They don't explore whether their assumption is correct; they just assume it is.The assumption is a product of the skillful job that religions have done in marketing their philosphies.
-
An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong
-
In reply to:No comments on my last paragraph, Steve?D'oh! I did have a response, but my PC crashed before I could finish and post it.In reply to:This is not totally new - I recall a discussion many years ago about how evolutionary selection could select for moral codes, given that they would disadvantage individuals who have them over those who don't. The answer seemed to be group selection as mentioned here, and software simulations using large numbers of Prisoner's Dilemma interactions supported a code of "do-as-you-would-be-done-by" followed by "done-by-as-you-did" (borrowing terms from The Water Babies).With regard to the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma experiments, you are correct. But the bigger issue is that individual humans (and other mammals) increase their chance of surviving, mating and reproducing when they live in bands or tribes. One cannot have a successful society where everyone has concern only for their own interests (As the article said, "The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality."). That raises the well-known philosophical question: does true altruism exist? Or is it a mammalian adaptation to enable them to form functioning societies?We could be talking about two sides of the same coin, but I'll leave it for someone else to make the connection.In reply to:These discussions implied a genetic moral code, so that's not a new idea.True, but the idea of "a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution" is an interesting one.In reply to:But it brings up a deeper issue. If one's moral code is merely the way one's brain pushes one, can the individual reasonably ignore it when it disadvantages him? I know the community will find it unacceptable, but suppose the community will never know. If my disapproval of the idea of murdering Aunt Ethel for her inheritance is merely inherited DNA, and an opportunity for murdering her undetectably arises, would doing so be similar to (say) deciding not to eat when I felt hungry?[Bold italics added by me.] There are very few complex phenomena where the word "merely" applies. Think of the hard-wiring as a proclivity. You are hardwired (apparently) not to harm yourself, but still, some people do harm themselves.I'm not sure that the analogy to hunger is apropos. When you're hungry, generally, you do want to eat. But even if you want your aunt's money, you probably still don't want to kill her. There's a moral dimension to killing a member of your species that doesn't apply to hunger.Speaking of hunger, if you were stranded with your family with only a small amount of food, wouldn't you be inclined to sacrifice feeding yourself for the sake of your children?In reply to:I think it's an example of the philosophical is-ought problem.OK, now you're getting all complexificated with meta-ethics here. It's the reply that I had for this idea that I am most displeased to have lost. Rather then recreating it, I'll just say that defining "moral behavior" is like nailing jello to a wall. It would be better to discuss specific behaviors that are generally/universally/etc. considered to be moral. The word "moral", in fact, just fuzzes everything up.Finally, a quote from the article:In reply to:The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauser’s view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society — do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill; avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different weights to the elements of the grammar’s calculations. Thus one society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty in certain circumstances. Or as Kipling observed, “The wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Katmandu, and the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.”
-
You're offended by a scientific theory that is about as close to truth as a scientific theory can be? I'm sorry about that. The myth of creationism, when taught in public schools, offends me.This thread isn't really about whether evolution is correct or not, but rather, about how certain aspect of human behavior came to be.
-
LOL Steve...couching your personal opinion on evolution as practically fact. The theory lacks one crucial element...it fails to demonstrate the cause for evolution. Something doesn't change unless there is something else that makes it change. There is no motivating factor for evolution to occur. Darwin himself claimed that he never found a species in the process of evolving...and he studied over 3,000 species. The reason? Try "thor's theory"...that God plays Mr. Potato-head with creatures. This explains why you never find a species in the process of evolving...it happens instantly! AND this theory explains the motivating power behind evolution (God).Note: There is AT LEAST as much proof to my theory as there is to such poppycock as "natural selection"...which is a lame attempt by anti-creationists to come up with some reason for creatures to evolve. If you logically follow the process of what would be necessary for natural selection to produce the different species we see today, you will also quickly come to the same conclusion about "natural selection".Bottom line: The portion of Darwin's theory that holds the most water not only agrees with, but corroborates the Bible...much to the chagrin of many.As for athiests being immoral, in a day, I would say no. But over time, without any moral compass to guide them, yes, they will become more immoral than a culture that has moral roots that lie outside their ability to effectively manipulate. How long will it take? That's a good question. Obviously not overnight, though possibly within a lifetime or one generation. Look what's happened to this country in the past 100 years.
-
In reply to:it fails to demonstrate the cause for evolution. And "God plays Mr. Potato-head with creatures" is an acceptable explanation for you? How is that in any way an explanation? Do we have ducks because God was fucking around with the genetic make-up of a chicken? What about us humans? Why did God give us wisdom teeth or an appendix? Was he fucking around with our creation, the species that he apparently made in his own image and holds higher than all other life? Why do some species of whales and snakes have hip bones? Is God so bored that he would make such major yet pointless changes to a species?In reply to:If you logically follow the process of what would be necessary for natural selection to produce the different species we see today, you will also quickly come to the same conclusion about "natural selection".What do you believe Natural Selection is? Do you believe that its like in X-men where people suddenly have extra-ordinary powers that control metal or let them fly? "Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits." (Wiki) An example is a bird that was hatched with a particularly shaped beak, a bird with a beak that is shaped in such a way that it allows it to get to it's source of food more easily. This is a small variation that makes life easier for this particular bird, he can get food quite easily and has a greater chance of survival than others of his species because of it. The small variation may then be passed on to the bird's young and then so on and so on. At the same time as the original bird was hatched another bird came out of its shell with an oddly shaped beak. But unlike the other bird, this one had a beak that did not work in its favour to get food. This bird is less likely to be able to get food for itself and therefore has a lesser chance of surviving. If this bird ever had young that had the same variation they would have an equally less chance of surviving, so across a long enough time span the chances of birds with this variation dying off would be greater than the chances of the birds whose variation would benefit them. Over enough time this small variation could evolve to a point where birds with the variation could be defined as a different species.This is natural selection. I don't know what you thought it was but this is a perfectly believable and plausible process.In reply to:There is no motivating factor for evolution to occur. And what is the motivation in "Thor's Theory" ...that God plays Mr. Potato-head with creatures? Why did God create us? Why did God create the Earth, the Universe and everything in it? Why does God keep randomly changing the species of the Earth? Please explain further because as of yet your theory fails to show any sign of this motivation that you believe is necessary.In reply to:Darwin himself claimed that he never found a species in the process of evolving...and he studied over 3,000 species.Evolution takes hundreds, even thousands of generations to occur. The changes between one generation and the next can be so small that it would be almost impossible to notice, and thats just if there is a change. Not every generation is different from the previous, but the evolving genetics are still passed on. And from studying over 3,000 species, its not likely that he would have been able to observe such small changes and still study so many creatures.In reply to:Bottom line: The portion of Darwin's theory that holds the most water not only agrees with, but corroborates the BibleAnd what portion is that? You claim to have such great knowledge of Darwin's theory yet you are very vague when referring to them.Thor, I don't know if you take any of comments seriously, if you even read them at all, since you are older and feel that you are wiser than I am, but I would appreciate a good strong reply from you. Please don't just assume that you're right, explain to me why you believe you are. I don't attack or ridicule your beliefs (if I have done so, I apologise), altho I do question them and I would truly enjoy reading a response.
-
{quote]There doesn't seem to be much evidence for evolution or intelligent design.
Yes there is, there is quite a lot of evidence. The difference between natural selection and intelligent design is rooted in the belief in a superior being. Without proof of a god, creationism can never be more than a theory. But natural selection is a process that could be observed over time.
"Why do we freeze in cold weather w/o heaters?" Because our bodies rely on warm blood running through our veins.
"Why can't we outrun a bear?" Some people can.
"Why do we drown in water?" Because our lungs can't extract the oxygen from water.
"Why do our lungs fail from smoke?" Because there isn't enough oxygen in the smoke.
"Why don't all creatures fear 'superior' man?" Because some creatures have never encountered a human. And some that have encountered men have been never been given a reason to fear humans.
"Why doesn't our bodies fend off all bad germs?" Because germs evolve.
In reply to:
There's too many 'whys' to ask, but none of them point to anything naturally selected or intelligently designed.
You give nothing to support that statement. There are "whys" and "hows" and "wheres" that point to natural selection and inteliigent design, you just foolishly ignore them.
In reply to:
We're just going to have to fall back on FAITH.
If we just did that, our lives would be horrific.
-
"they will become more immoral than a culture that has moral roots" I'm an athiest, you think I'm gonna go rob a store or shoot someone because i dont believe in god? I have my own moral ideal, I dont need a book to tell me how to live my own life, I hapen to believe in evolution, why do speciese evolve? because of necesity, i certainly dont know all the details but I would bet more on a proven scientific theory then a invisible guy who promisis to save me after i die only if i do exactly what he says
-
people do read the bible for themselves, and they do come up with their own understanding, it just differs from your's, what YOU want, is for people to read it, and come to YOUR understanding of it and if they dont, their wrong, you are the embodiment of all things i hate about religion. You want to know why i poke holes in the bible? besides the excessive ease, because i need visual proof, I see no proof of god in the world today, Wars, death, disease, dispare, if god was all powerful, why didnt he make a beter world? why didnt he make man able to withstand all the harshness of the world? why cant we survive for long under water? why do we burn when lit on fire? why do we die if a tree fals on us? If god was real, why didnt he make us so we could withstand all this?
-
I don't care if you agree with my answers or not, you posted the questions, I answered them. Of course there is more to my answers that I didn't bother posting but you will just dismiss anything that someone says if it doesn't agree with your beliefs. In reply to:...but rather, if we are either of those, intelligently designed or naturally selected, why aren't we better at it than we are? This is a question more towards Intelligent design as I have already explained the theory of natural selection. Just as there is no motivation for natural selection, there is no control of it. We can't just think really hard about it and have a baby pop out with wings. Its random, its small and we currently have no control over it. In reply to:I didn't really have a statement to support here"There's too many 'whys' to ask, but none of them point to anything naturally selected or intelligently designed."That is a statement, and an ignorant one at that. There is a lot of evidence to support natural selction. The Galápagos Islands hold 13 species of finches that are closely related and differ most in the shape of their beaks. The beak of each species is suited to its preferred food, suggesting that beak shapes evolved by natural selection. An example is the MRSA bug. While antibiotics are able to kill most bacteria, some bacteria have mutated to be more resistant. So when an antibiotic treatment is given, the weaker bacteria dies but the new stronger bacteria survives. These surviving bacteria will then reproduce again, producing the next generation. Due to the elimination of the maladapted individuals in the past generation, this population contains more bacteria that have some resistance against the antibiotic.
-
Intelligent design implies perfection from the get-go. In evoluition, things happen randomly, and things that work better are kept, and things that don't work so well are discarded over time. Sometimes nature throws a curve ball at species by changing its environment; perfection is never acheived.The idea of evolution is not to perfect creatures; it's to allow them to reproduce as much as possible.None of your issues are in any way inconsistent with evolution, so I'm not sure what your point is.
-
Why do our bodies rely on warm blood?Because we evolved in an environment where 37 C (98.6 F) was the ideal temperature for our muscles, organs, other tissues, and enzymes to function properly (based upon denaturization of the protein structure at other temperatures, a concept you'd understand if you took biology). Our warm blood allowed us to function fine in the environment humans originated from. When humans migrated to colder regions, we survived based upon our ability to handle the cold because we were intelligent enough to conserve heat through clothing, making fire, and building shelter.Please show me the people who can outrun a bear!Because humans evolved to work together and avoid the bear or kill it all together. There was never any reason for any evolutionary change that made someone able to kill a bear with their bare hands a better survivalist (and more likely to reproduce) than anyone else. A stronger human more likely means a larger human that requires more food. The reason top level carnivores aren't as plentiful as lower level consumers is because in too high of numbers they begin to compete with one another for food which leads to their numbers falling. More importantly for us, we retained a moderate size and were able to work together and use our hands in ways other animals couldn't, thus making us very successful.Why can't our lungs extract oxygen from water AND air?Because we evolved in an environment where extracting oxygen from the water wasn't necessary for survival. Actually, what used to be gill slits are what formed the jawbones of early land creatures as the creatures that had their bones begin to fuse into a jawline where able to crush tougher plant species than other animals, making them very successful.Why can't we extract the available oxygen in smoke or shut that process down until it returns?Because we never needed to. Most humans aren't exposed to life threating levels of smoke in their lives, so there was no reason for any individual that could survive that to do better than any other individual.This was why don't, not why do! Why don't all creatures fear mankind enough to never attack us?Humans evolved to do well, but other animals didn't evolve just to fear humans. Fearing humans might not have mattered in their evolution. A shark in the ocean had no reason to fear a human. You don't see masses of humans hunting sharks (until more recently and we see a trend where the deeper sea sharks are more unaffected by human changes to their environment and population levels but others have their coastal habitats polluted and are being hunted since they don't flee as you say, like whale sharks).Germs evolve, so why don't humans keep one step ahead without scientific research?This is because germs lack a nuclear membrane and reproduce at a MUCH faster rate than we do. This leads to rapid mutation, because their circular RNA (basically a simpler form of DNA) is exposed to more outside radiation because of the lack of a protective membrane. Most mutations have a negative effect, causing the individual bacteria to not fare as well. Some have positive effects, such as modifying a protein on the outer cell membrane, thus making antibodies unable to recognize them and the new strain able to successfully reproduce in a host body without being attacked until the immune system "adapts" (it's a little more complicated than that). Bacteria function well this way, because they are far simpler and more adaptable than we are. In general, animals hve far too complicated a genetic code that would allow them to do well under such circumstances. Rapid mutation would cause too many flaws in our genetic code, because we have no need to adapt so quickly. We function fairly well as we are. There are potential adaptations that might benefit humans, but they are not imperative to our survival as is the mutation in a bacterial species. Most negative mutations result in genetic diseases (in which we may combat the effects with modern medicine, allowing these flawed genetics to go on, and there's a huge ethical debate there, but that's not the topic we're on).We are equipped well enough to survive, and that is the support for evolution through natural selection. The genetic mutation that led to us being the way we are allowed us to surive, therefore here we are. Being perfect beings is not a part of evolution, it's more a part of creation. After all, under the idea of creation, weren't we fashioned under the image of god, therefore we should be more perfect than we are?Also, not directed solely at you, understand that theories of evolution and natural selection have come a LONG WAY since Darwin. He was not the end all be all, only the pioneer. There has been a lot of scientific research, as well as the discovery of the genetic code since his time.
-
Nobody can expect humans to be perfect. We are one species on a planet of thousands. Why should we be better adapted than others?
-
Woopidy-fucking-doo! In reply to: but to raise a question as to why we aren't better adapted by either process: design or evolution. You keep saying "better adapted", but better adapted for what? For breathing under water? For being able to survive in an oxygen-deprived environment? We aren't adapted for that because we don't need to be. Its as simple as that. So just stop asking your stupid questions. Its like asking why humans don't have two dicks: its because we don't need two dicks!
-
What if females started being born with two vaginas? How long do you think it would take the males to catch on and start sprouting a second dick? And then there's always the poor mutant who has no dick at all, but I'm not going to start picking on you here.. Hey, I've just had a great idea, why dont you find a girlfriend with no vagina?!
-
Nah, I've no problem at the moment with my langerlessness. Got nothing to put it in anyway.
-
Ahhhh, here's the regrettable joke I was only just talking about! I'm sorry!, x
Have a read of your thread in the relationships forum if you're still around.
-
In reply to:And evolution: Why are so many creatures so much better adapted to survive without artificial means than we are?Without our intelligence to create artificial environments, would mankind be alive at all?Perhaps not. Intelligence is part of our evolutionary adaptation to our environement. It's one path to success that works, but it's not the only one. Bacteria and insects are not very smart, but they're also very successful.Evolution toward complexity is just one "strategy".It would be disavantageous for humans to evolve the ability to breathe under water, since it would use a lot of resources that the body could use for other things, yet would be very rarely needed. Had it evolved for some reason, it would have disappeared, since it's not needed the way we live now.I realize that your posts in this thread are pointless, but I've replied in case anyone else thinks otherwise. [RobBob: Good post!]
-
As was mentioned, I hope you understand that Darwin didn't have the last word on evolution. Scientific progress in the field has been made since the 1800's.What molecular biologists, anthropologists, etc. can you name who reject evolution? Do you think they're all brainwashed?> Try "thor's theory"...that God plays Mr. Potato-head with creatures.Try learning something about evolution since Darwin. He's been dead for a very long time.> This explains why you never find a species in the process of evolving...it happens instantly!Some interesting articles:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2005/08/biology26.html (8/2005)TalkOrigins on Macroevolution (9/2006)TalkOrigins archive on evolution Wikipedia article on evolutionSearch for these topics:Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biologySpeciationDarren E. Irwin, "Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation" TalkOrigins: Observed SpeciationIn any case, if a phenomenon hasn't been observed yet, it doesn't mean that scientific theories on the phenomenon are wrong. Scientific ideas on planetary mechanics turned out to be correct, while the Catholic church was wrong. Einstein's idea that light bends (and goes slower than the "speed of light when not in a vacuum) under the influence of gravity, and that time dilation occurs (increasingly) in a frame of reference as that frame of reference approaches the speed of light.The fact is that evolution squarely opposes the biblical creation myth. As data is collected and analyzed, biblical ideas on biology are painted into a diminishingly small corner.So far science has shown how and why genetics mutations lead to biological changes. It has shown how living things are made of cells, how cell organelles function, and how proteins are synthesized within a cell. It has shown how, in complex mammals, how biochemical processes occur within organisms.The bible has shown none of that. It has led to no knowledge in how the physical universe functions. It has led to no disease cure. It's a philosophy book. As a source of non-philosophical knowledge, however, it's a complete bust.(My prayer: Lord, please deliver to this site someone who understands science, who is well-read, and who can intelligently debate evolution from a pro-creationist viewpoint. We had a teenager here a while back who pretty well fit the bill. Would that we can get another like him? These discussions as they are, are not very useful.)
-
Well, just because God hasn't been observed yet creating a new species from one that already exists (playing Mr. Potatohead) doesn't mean that "thor's theory" is wrong either.Evolution happens. Period. The disagreement here is as to the "motiviational cause" behind its happening. "Natural Selection" doesn't work...God's creating things similar to how my theory goes, does.You're right...the Bible is spiritually-based, not biologically based. But if it says "God created" you can best believe it.
-
see, theres one flaw in your argument, I'm an athiest and so, i dont believe in god, and if i dont believe in him, i dont believe he created the earth, and so thus, i believe your argument is all just puffing smoke
