Sorry I'm slow to reply, but I've been busy, and others have been chatting with you. Even though you've missed the points I've been making, I see moderators are quick to remove my positive moderations, and letting you soak it up. That's the problem with slashdot discussions - if you are the majority, and you don't like another view, mod it out of the water.
Oh, and what's a naturalist? Is that the same as an athiest?
I suppose it has two meanings, the original referring to a biologist of natural history. Now the term 'naturalism' refers to the philosophy that all things can be explained with reference only to the natural. It is this philosophy which is foundational to the atheistic position - and also to darwinism.
If it reassures you to think that some people feel that way, go for it. I can't speak for anyone but me. In my case, I don't have an overwhelming understanding that there is any supreme being. In fact, just the opposite.
In this case what I was talking about is that every human has an overwhelming understanding that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I wasn't talking about knowing there is a God. However, the former necessarily leads to the latter
I think claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Well, we don't see eye to eye. I'm not a subscriber to the naturalist philosophy, so making an appeal to a world without God seems to be the extraordinary claim - while a world created by God seems to be the standard and rational safe ground.
So where's that extraordinarily compelling evidence?
Once you understand my complaint against the atheist view of morality, then we might be able to address these later questions. Foundational things first, you need to answer me this question: What is wrong with murder? If there is no God, then surely the question about whether we can murder or not is akin to the question of whether we drive on the left or right side of the road?
I have found a good summary of the argument for you to refute:
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I have also an example of what objective moral values would be, so we are talking about the same thing, quoting: It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good, and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis has won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
When you state that as an atheist you can still determine what is good and evil or right and wrong, you are missing the point of the argument. Since I believe morality cannot exist without God, when you say that you as an atheist can determine right or wrong, you provide testimony to my ears of the existence of God. All humans know a priori that there is such a thing as right or wrong, good or evil. This could only come from God. When you deny God, you should also deny right or wrong, yet you do not - so you hold two contradictory beliefs...that there is no God, and that there is right and wrong. Right and wrong are not terms that can be explained. They are things that we know are true without proof - foundational true beliefs.
I'm undecided on polygyny, and disagree with polyandry. I'm not willing to say anything about a topic for which I am undecided. What do you mean by your term "male-homophobia"?
Now perhaps you could argue that the only way to arrive at even this rule is through religon. Personally, I can arrive at it by simply recognizing that all people are equal in that we all have a soul. I cannot, therefore, justify causing pain to others, even if it results in my own gain
You are all defending the wrong point. I already believe that an atheist can form a relatively correct view of right and wrong. But, I beleive that this is only possible because God exists. Even though the atheist rejects His existence, it does not cause Him to cease to exist. The atheist gains his understanding of right and wrong from what God has implanted in us. We know these things a priori, but we have perverted them - which is why we come to similar, but not identical, conclusions. This is why God's word is invaluable for distinguishing when our conclusions disagree.
But back to the point, and what I quoted above - if you believe there is no God, then on what basis do you believe that you must come to the conclusion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? What makes this 'right'? What makes something else 'wrong'? I'm not questioning your ability to arrive at that conclusion, I'm questioning whether there is any basis for:
a. Looking to reach that conclusion
b. A foundational belief to begin the steps of reasoning to it
Assuming a world without God.
Put another way, "If there is no God, why is it wrong to hurt someone else?".
If there is no God, on what basis do you infer this "right"? That is my question, which none have answered yet. My answer is that the only reason he can come up with a moral code apart from a love from God is because God does indeed exist - and that even though he disbelieves in God, it does not cause God to cease to exist. And because of that, he cannot escape the underlying knowledge of right and wrong which all humans have since our first parents ate the forbidden food.
You are still thinking on the premise that God does exist. Without God there is no reason to believe that my rights stop at the tip of your nose. Certainly, the darwinist worldview is replete with times when that wasn't true.
I am undecided on the question of polygyny, so I will refrain from giving you an answer. Though you must clarify what you mean by 'questioning God', because I doubt (but am not sure) that you have considered the question of the basis for polygyny from Scripture as deep as I have.
That wasn't your point. That was a given. I *think* what your point was is that there is something wrong with the view that I don't think everything between consensting adults is acceptable. But I'm not sure, because you didn't give any reasons why this is wrong - nor did you really present any argument at all. You just called me a Bible thumper and declared that you disagreed with me.
You miss the point, and fail to distinguish between two methods of obtaining true beliefs. One of them is a bad way, the other is good.
1. Your claim that you are able to determine right and wrong independant from God or the threat of hell is a testimony to your willingness to listen to subjective feelings about good and evil. Since you willingly concede that different people will have different conceptions, then you must also agree that such terms "right" and "wrong" are subjective. And without a God, or a yardstick, such understandings must be fluid.
2. My point was a logical one - if there is no afterlife, no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong". The important question is not "could you know the right thing to do without the threat of eternal punishment", but rather "is there a right or wrong if there is no God or eternal punishment?". I do not distinguish between right and wrong out of fear of damnation. I do it out of a love for God and a desire to follow His laws as He created humans initially. This is where our concepts of right and wrong come from - which are, literally, meaningless in a naturalistic worldview.
And this is one of the greatest hypocricies of the atheist position - a failure to acknowledge the logical conclusion, that "good" and "evil" only make sense when we consider the divine. Without any God, there is no right or wrong. So, restating what I said - it's not a question of if I could do "good" if there was no God, but rather that there is no such thing as "good" if there is no God.
Naturalists are probably deathly afraid of these conclusions for two reasons:
1. It goes against every fibre of humans, because the truth is we do know good and evil, and that we know it because there is a God. The understanding is so overwhelming that even a logical conclusion denying "good" or "evil" is avoided, because it is counter to what we know a priori.
2. If the naturalist/atheist was to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their beliefs, then it would give great power to their opponents (mostly, theists) in condemning their teachings as insane ramblings, and to label the naturalists/atheists clearly as evildoers and evil promoters.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
The question is how you define qualifications like "progess" and "perfection". If progess means "better adapted to the current habitat/environment" then most certainly evolutionary progress is taking place.
Agreed.
This however says nothing about the state (of perfection) of the changing environment; which makes evolution and devolution interchangeable in a metaphysical context, but not in a physical/biological context. IOW you can speak of devolution if you (morally) judge the environment to be degrading, while evolution does not make such moral judgements.
This part confuses me, because I don't know what IOW stands for, and I don't think I have the same definition for evolution and devolution as you. Can you word it another way please?
This begs the question of how to call these changes in genetic markup if they're not of devolutionary nature and there is no such thing as evolution.
Again, I'm confused, possibly by different understandings of the words evolution and devolution.
Earlier in this discussion I was under the impression you believed that more selective pressure causes less changes in genes. I was just trying to show the contradiction in that statement by various examples.
Selective pressure itself does not cause changes in genes. Mutations do. Higher selective pressure causes the elimination of a number of existing traits, which produces a species more adapted to the environment - less diversity, but more specialised. Is that what you are saying?
I know, but again, the problem I have with this is how to call this rapid speciation if it's not devolution and there is no evolution.
Again, see above:)
Definitions aside, do you see how it is possible to interpret the available data as showing rapid speciation and a degredation of the gene pool - both through a loss of diversity, and the introduction of harmful mutations?
Did you make a point here, or did I just miss it? Where did I give you the impression that I think anything between consenting adults is acceptable? Where did you offer an argument to counter that?
Stop trying to insult me in order to win arguments, and make a point.
Those are your opinions. In my opinion, life should not involve slavish belief in an unsubstantiated fairy tale about a hypothetical omnipotent being. And in my opinion, most religions are evil institutions that damage the lives of people who participate in them and interact with them. Those are my opinions. How fortunate for both of us that we live in a place where people are granted the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit, and we can agree to disagree.
It's fascinating how all questions on morality boil down to God's existence. With no God, there is no "right" or "wrong". Suddenly everything is neutral. It is then ever so convenient to deny God's existence as an excuse for what you want to excuse, and to then use nonsensical terms like "evil" when you want to appeal to morality, such as when you said most religions are evil institutions. So, which way is it? If you think these organisations are evil, then by what standard or law do you judge them to be evil.
Oh hang on, their religion is built on crap like "sex is evil, sex is a sin" to keep everyone but the REAL wierdos sinning
Get a clue. Christianity states that sex is a good thing, and that reproducing is a desire of God. Christianity also states, however, that you are NEVER permitted to sleep with the wife of another man. When you have sex, it is not just a physical thing, but a spiritual binding - "the two become one flesh". This is through the act of sex. Therefore, when a man has sex with a woman who has been with another man, they both commit adultery. There is nothing wrong with sex - you set up a strawman then attack it. The problem is in improper use of it. I don't care what you say - the thought of a man recording his wife (as I heard in one case) act in sex scenes makes me sick and angry.
The whole porn industry in general makes me angry - a comment which is bound to displease many slashdotters, as I know how popular pornography is. After seeing how immoral it is, I cannot say anything good about it. I saw the deception and manipulation that is involved in getting these women involved in acts of depravity they would never normally agree with.
But I just had to counter your point. The objections to pornography are nothing to do with thinking sex is evil. Sex should never be a public thing. Sex should never involve multiple men. It should never involve having sex with another man's wife. It is an evil institution that damages the lives of people who participate in it, and those who view it. Unfortunately a transcript for a story I viewed went into detail on this, but is now not available for viewing by the public. So here is a smaller list of reasons why porn is bad for the viewer.
Of course, when one believes that humans are nothing more than animals, I can offer no argument directly against pornography. But you used the words "created", so you must have some belief in the divine. How many of you porn supporters can honestly say you'd be pleased if your daughter became a porn star, having sex with many different men in her life, for thousands of other men to view?
I can't see anything laudable, praisworthy, edifying, good, or righteous about pornography. I see instead addiction, obsession, lust, debauchery, insecurity, adultery, betrayel.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but I still don't get this. The way I see it: if we accept the concept of devolution, meaning the genetic makeup of species was perfect to begin with and can only degrade over time; we must also accept that losing bits of these perfect genes is one of the processes by which devolution does its job. If there is no such thing as evolution, all processes that change the genetic markup of a species must be devolutionary.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Or, at least one definition of evolution is (the one typically put forward by darwinists when asked for a scientific theory of evolution). However, this theory says nothing about the direction evolution takes. Through its overuse in the context of the advancement of a species, evolution is assumed to mean a progression. Technically, however, the observational data of evolution does not support that position. It is equally plausible, and indeed more probable, that evolution results in the degeneration of a species.
Under the scenario that I described we would observe rapid changes in species, as we do, but those rapid changes would be accompanied by an increasing amount of harmful mutations entering the gene pool. Many of these would be selected against through natural selection, but not all. Two points of note:
1. This is undoubtedly the reason why the Biblical account of brother and sister marriages would have been no problem in the past, but forbidden at later times, as we now forbid in many places cousins to marry. In the conceivable future this restriction could be made even further as even more harmful mutations enter the gene pool.
2. We know relatively little about biology, and there is one proposal I read about alleles having the ability to produce new variants in a non-harmful way, through recombination. http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationre view.html - in case you are interested.
IOW the way I see it, rapid speciation means rapid devolution; rapid speciation and slow devolution at the same time would be contradictory.
Not with careful defining of the terms. Rapid speciation is not devolution. It is merely the reduction of genetic diversity in a gene pool, but with the advantage of specialisation in a particular area or areas. For example, humans of different skin colours being suited to different environments. And diversity can be reintroduced simply by two different species that share a common ancestor interbreeding to have children with greater diversity again. This happens amongst humans, and typically the offspring of mixed races (whether human or animal) are better than the offspring from within races due to far less mutations in common. What the 'devolution' as you call it is, is the introduction of harmful mutations into the gene pool. That is what causes the degeneration.
I tried to demonstrate this contradiction by my entropy example: if you apply more pressure to a chaotic system it tends to speed up/increase in temperature, not the other way around.
Not sure what you mean by this, sorry.
Even metaphysically speaking, if you would argue natural selection speeds up devolution, I could only agree with you; this way the whole of creation would move farther and farther from God('s perfection), but creatures would still be able to adapt to the hell they're descending into, picking up speed and creating an even deeper hell in the process.
It is possible that natural selection slows degeneration of a species, but still helps with the adaptation to the increasingly degenerate world. I don't see rapid speciation as harmful, and in fact it is even an integral part of the darwinist model.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand this response/reference.
Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond
the limits of our bodies.
So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do
nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain
frenchman.
So you affirm my point that all living things are not equal?
The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we
consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At
what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to
be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.
These things, betrayal and everything, still occur. Natural selection can
hardly remove traits that give its bearer advantages, but virtues also give
advantages.
I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since
virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.
At any rate, while society working together has benefits, betrayel does too.
While an individual may find cooperation more useful, that society as a whole
may find betrayal and war more beneficial - hence genocide, and the
elimination of the weaker.
At any rate, it cannot be said by the darwinist that any action is just or
unjust. And here is one absurdity of the darwinist position. No one argues
on the pros or cons of a potential war based on the evolutionary damage. Eg,
"we should wipe out that race because they are weaker than ours" or, "do not
wipe out that race for they are superior to us". Usually it is for more
altruistic reasons, "do not wipe out that race because they have done no evil"
- even if such an action would produce an advantage for the agressor and a
disadvantage if he/she does not act. Instead, we use terms and judgements
that affirm the existence of a Creator.
Of course, if evolution is true, then one cannot trust our minds for any reason
or logic, since all thoughts will be directed towards survival and
reproduction, and not truth or 'good' (whatever that means). That we take for
granted we are rational creatures is a result of a belief in God. When one
accepts darwinism, there is no more reason to conclude that we have a rational
mind, and such terms become meaningless.
And you have awnserd your own question, using the exact word I was going to use
too: Virtues help the community, betrayal helps the individual. The
communities defend themselves by shunning the individuals that put themselves
above the community through betrayal and the like.
betrayel can help the community, in a great number of scenarios, when the
betrayel involves one community against another. Even betrayel that benefits
the individual may benefit the community in some circumstances. Of course,
the only reason I can see that you would want to logically defend behaviour
like loyalty and trust is so that darwinists cannot be labelled by their
opponents as evil encouragers of wickedness. If darwinists were to truly
follow their beliefs to their conclusions, then they could offer no argument
against those who wish to do what Christians consider evil.
But here there is no proof.
No one is as blind as the person who refuses to look.
When people like you are shown proof they either refuse to look in the
telescope and threaten excommunion or they make up words like "microevolution"
and "macroevolution" to obfuscate the situation.
Of course, that reference leaves no room for the man who has looked,
considered, and rejected the findings on reasonable grounds.
I've read a few of your posts and I see you have read up on the
subject, but you show such bad faith...
I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.
Yes, but that opens up a fundamental flaw - how is natural selection
intelligent enough to select for long t
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I'm impressed by the change in your demeanor since your initial post.
Jaques.
Cousteau.
I don't understand this response/reference.
logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.
Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.
Sure, but it wasn't always this way. The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.
And we recently have found an new way to breed out rapists, by aborting their unborn spawns, but apparently god is pro rape or someting, all the preachers are against that.
What a strange conception. "god is pro rape or someting"...yes, 'or someting'. Strange as it may seem to you, Christians in general value the life of all people, no matter what race or age. In particular we see a need to defend those who are helpless. The child of a rapist is also a victim. And for that reason alone Christians teach that such children should not be aborted. For the mistakes of another, we do not consider the murder of a child a just recompense. Of course, the standard response may be to call that child just a tissue, or the mother's body, but nothing could be more absurd. Especially when one considers the fact that, even in the mother's womb, the child needs to set up defences because the mother's body naturally desires to reject the foreign body. And the child has it's own DNA. A unique, and valuable life, with a chance to lead a life completely different to that of the rapist who spawned it. Completely separate from the mother, relying on her for sustenance. Not an easy thing for a mother to look after, but it does not justify murder.
It is also true that so long as there are no selective pressures (such as when there are enough resources), there is no darwinist evolution.
That's a phase of evolution. Darwin figured that evolution occured slowly over very long periods of time, but since he was a scientists, not a prophet, his theory has evolved too. There is evidence that points to punctual evolution, where major changes occur rather quickly (geologically speaking, not X-Men fast) when some radical change in the environment makes selection much harsher. In the interim only the occasional minor change occurs, since the pressure to change is less. That would be the part where subtle changes and minor diversity is introduced in the gene pool.
Yes, and Gould's motivation for punctuated equillibrium was the fact that the fossil record does not support Darwinist evolution. As Gould said, it shows stasis (no change) and saltation (sudden appearance of creatures). So, I'm still waiting for proof of darwinist evolution. Biologists search for the method in biology on the assumption that darwinist evolution is justified elsewhere - such as the fossil record. But here there is no proof. Each field assumes that the next one has the proof.
if one creature had a feeling of greed to take more than it wanted, and killed for it, then that creature would be selected for. Thus darwinist evolution favours in this case something we consider immoral.
Yes, evolution occurs without a sense of morality.
But taking more than you want is not a balanced trait, and chances are that the short-term advantage this (apparently genetic) trait would be outweighed by the long-term negative effect of such behaviour.
Remember the story of the grasshoper and the ant? Selfish and short sighted behaviour works great when the conditions are
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I now realise that we are talking about two separate parts of darwinist evolution.
Natural selection can be split into these two functions, for purposes of clarifying this debate:
1. Selection of existing traits - Darwin's finches are a good example. This is when a creature inherits traits from its parents, but only those that inherit certain traits have a better chance of survival. This has the dual effect of producing rapid speciation and reducing diversity in the gene pool.
2. Selection of mutations - most mutations are harmful/harmless, and this role of natural selection is to insure that the harmless ones are removed from the gene pool, while the beneficial ones (if such exist) are kept.
Now what you are talking about is the first situation, while I was talking about the second. Selection and adaptation can only go so far before the species is optimally adapted to its environment as far as the gene pool can handle. This has been demonstrated, for example, in the selective breeding of sugar canes by farmers for optimum output. After 100 years of selective breeding, the best possible breed was selected by farmers, and no more amount of selection could improve it.
So if we accept the premise that natural selection performs a slowing function (slowing degredation of a species) rather than enhancing it, then we would see the following:
1. Rapid speciation - the gene pool would initially be large, and offspring would be selected based on the traits they inherited. This is the faster change you noted when there's high selective pressure
2. Slow degeneration - the purity of the gene pool would be reduced, and in a species where the genetic diversity is low we would see greater degredation until inter-species relations re-introduce the initial diversity in the gene pool
To clarify further, there would be over time a slow degredation of the gene pool, but much of this would be masked through the rapid speciation of creatures through the selection of pre-existing traits.
I hope this helps to make sense.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
What's to say this hasn't already happened? Besides, I don't think your example is true. I would reject the claim that insects would be wiped out if "genetic entropy" was true. Insects are hard to find and numerous - far more numerous than their predators, which are hunted by other creatures. The circle of life;)
Ultimately I don't believe that the predators of insects are powerful enough to destroy them. This is obvious from reality, and I'm saying that in reality creatures could be devolving. Natural selection would still work to balance things out, as would predators of predators. If a predator feeds off insects, then when the insect population gets low, so would the predators start to die, giving the insects a chance to grow, and so on.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
As you've probably noticed, I usually don't reply to you in particular - but this post was most cordial, so I will.
That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.
Thanks for supporting my argument. I already could imagine life without natural selection, but the person I was responding to could not.
Could you give an example of what you're talking about?
Certainly. Darwin's finches are the best known example. The changes in these birds were the result of selection of pre-existing traits. That form of 'evolution' has nothing to do with the introduction of new traits through mutations that leads to the creation of new species. In other words, it says nothing about common ancestry - because it involved the selection of already existing traits. The example that the finches gaves also coincides perfectly with the creationist model.
To summarise, it is a great evidence for the definition of 'evolution' on talkorigins ("Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."), but not of darwinist evolution, which involves selection of beneficial mutations by which all genetic diversity initially arose. Yet people will point to cases like the finches as proof of that talkorigins definition of evolution and assume that it is proof of other uses of the word 'evolution' which have nothing to do with selection of pre-existing traits.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
First of all, you do not understand the theory of evolution AND you use "darwinist" in a way that does not reflect its true meaning.
Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks).
Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.
And how was this something I didn't know? I use the term "Darwinist" as opposed to "evolutionist", because darwinist makes it clear I am talking about that brand of evolution which states that all life descends from a common simple single celled lifeform, and that the method through which this occurred was natural selection of mutations.
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.
Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.
How witty of you. Now on to your flawed reasoning...
If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?
What about if we took one human who could survive well in both environments and compare him to either one of these people? By your reasoning we'd then have to conclude that he's superior. You neglect to address the problem of other flaws which are not so easily measured, nor so easily interchanged. Take, for example, a mutation which results in internal bleeding after the softest blows. Would you consider that person to be superior or inferior to another who did not have it in that specific area?
If we take your intention with that argument to its conclusions we can then say that a single bacteria is not inferior or superior to a human. Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?
*If* you agree that one living thing can be considered superior or inferior to another (eg, a human vs a rat), then you cannot reasonably draw a line where such comparisons of superiority should end. And if no line can be drawn, then out of any two given humans, one is superior to the other - even if such superiority cannot be measured. If, however, you disagree and say that a human and a rat are equal, then I will be content to consider you either a madman (or woman) or one who is so blind he/she will accept any proposition, no matter how absurd, to defend a lie.
It is my belief that humans will be able to survive in more circumstances, with greater superiority, and achieve more, than rats ever could. If humans and rats were to "wage war" or strive against each other for limitted resources, that my money would be on the humans. And please don't mention the plague - since it is equally possible that humans could carry a disease fatal to rats. I would say humans are superior to rats.
Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.
Yes, and some creatures are more capable of surviving in more circumstances with greater results than others. Equality among living things is nonexistent. Is an adult equal with a child? Is a banana equal to a pear?
If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.
Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.
So clearly
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Because he's informative and you're a troll.
Nice job. You refuted your own answer with your second paragraph. Troll I could understand, because that comes from the biases inherent in the slashdot crowd. But off-topic was a completely hypocritical moderation. And, it turns out, you agree with me but didn't want to make it look like you did.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well, I'm glad you see my point. Your use of the word "right" in "society has an equal right to punish you for such actions" is meaningless. They have no "right" to do so, nor any reason to justify. There is just meaningless events that happen. The fact that we feel certain things are good and bad under a naturalistic worldview can only be explained in terms of their ability to increase our chances of survival. Therefore we can have no trust in our faculties to determine logic or truth, since our mind would not be 'designed' for such things. Instead, our mind would be geared towards greater survival - and logic is meaningless. What is meaningful is a lie or a truth that increases our chances of survival and reproduction. For all we know our mind could be considering certain lies as truth because that helped us survive. An example being a man who believes that lions should be petted, but the best way to pet them is to run away at breakneck speed. His reasoning is nonsensical, but it increases his chances of survival nonetheless.
Therefore if darwinism is true, we cannot trust our minds to determine that it is true. It defeats itself.
Re:I'd be happy to continue this conversation...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Well, in all honesty, that would make you the fourth such person (the second from today's story, and two from another time), so I'm not sure I want to commit to another conversation. And since you say you may not have much time, it might be in both our interests not to. Still, if you are interested I won't ignore you:) I'll send this to you via email also.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Tell me why it is that your post is modded informative, yet mine are modded off topic - and they're both talking about the same topic? The pro-evolutionary zealotry on slashdot is irritating to say the least.
I wish that skeptics would apply their brand of thought to their own beliefs - so quick to criticize followers of religions as chasing after myths, yet so stubbornly refusing to look at their own beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it has two meanings, the original referring to a biologist of natural history. Now the term 'naturalism' refers to the philosophy that all things can be explained with reference only to the natural. It is this philosophy which is foundational to the atheistic position - and also to darwinism.
In this case what I was talking about is that every human has an overwhelming understanding that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I wasn't talking about knowing there is a God. However, the former necessarily leads to the latter
Well, we don't see eye to eye. I'm not a subscriber to the naturalist philosophy, so making an appeal to a world without God seems to be the extraordinary claim - while a world created by God seems to be the standard and rational safe ground.
Once you understand my complaint against the atheist view of morality, then we might be able to address these later questions. Foundational things first, you need to answer me this question: What is wrong with murder? If there is no God, then surely the question about whether we can murder or not is akin to the question of whether we drive on the left or right side of the road?
I have found a good summary of the argument for you to refute:
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I have also an example of what objective moral values would be, so we are talking about the same thing, quoting:
It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good, and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis has won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
When you state that as an atheist you can still determine what is good and evil or right and wrong, you are missing the point of the argument. Since I believe morality cannot exist without God, when you say that you as an atheist can determine right or wrong, you provide testimony to my ears of the existence of God. All humans know a priori that there is such a thing as right or wrong, good or evil. This could only come from God. When you deny God, you should also deny right or wrong, yet you do not - so you hold two contradictory beliefs...that there is no God, and that there is right and wrong. Right and wrong are not terms that can be explained. They are things that we know are true without proof - foundational true beliefs.
I'm undecided on polygyny, and disagree with polyandry. I'm not willing to say anything about a topic for which I am undecided. What do you mean by your term "male-homophobia"?
For your example to work, you have to show on what basis it is equally reasonable to conclude that God is eros.
You are all defending the wrong point. I already believe that an atheist can form a relatively correct view of right and wrong. But, I beleive that this is only possible because God exists. Even though the atheist rejects His existence, it does not cause Him to cease to exist. The atheist gains his understanding of right and wrong from what God has implanted in us. We know these things a priori, but we have perverted them - which is why we come to similar, but not identical, conclusions. This is why God's word is invaluable for distinguishing when our conclusions disagree.
But back to the point, and what I quoted above - if you believe there is no God, then on what basis do you believe that you must come to the conclusion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? What makes this 'right'? What makes something else 'wrong'? I'm not questioning your ability to arrive at that conclusion, I'm questioning whether there is any basis for:
a. Looking to reach that conclusion
b. A foundational belief to begin the steps of reasoning to it
Assuming a world without God.
Put another way, "If there is no God, why is it wrong to hurt someone else?".
You are still thinking on the premise that God does exist. Without God there is no reason to believe that my rights stop at the tip of your nose. Certainly, the darwinist worldview is replete with times when that wasn't true.
I am undecided on the question of polygyny, so I will refrain from giving you an answer. Though you must clarify what you mean by 'questioning God', because I doubt (but am not sure) that you have considered the question of the basis for polygyny from Scripture as deep as I have.
I thought I was clear, but here is another poster's clarification:9 8032
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=103131&cid=87
That wasn't your point. That was a given. I *think* what your point was is that there is something wrong with the view that I don't think everything between consensting adults is acceptable. But I'm not sure, because you didn't give any reasons why this is wrong - nor did you really present any argument at all. You just called me a Bible thumper and declared that you disagreed with me.
Thankyou for this great attempt to elucidate what I was saying.
1. Your claim that you are able to determine right and wrong independant from God or the threat of hell is a testimony to your willingness to listen to subjective feelings about good and evil. Since you willingly concede that different people will have different conceptions, then you must also agree that such terms "right" and "wrong" are subjective. And without a God, or a yardstick, such understandings must be fluid.
2. My point was a logical one - if there is no afterlife, no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong". The important question is not "could you know the right thing to do without the threat of eternal punishment", but rather "is there a right or wrong if there is no God or eternal punishment?". I do not distinguish between right and wrong out of fear of damnation. I do it out of a love for God and a desire to follow His laws as He created humans initially. This is where our concepts of right and wrong come from - which are, literally, meaningless in a naturalistic worldview.
And this is one of the greatest hypocricies of the atheist position - a failure to acknowledge the logical conclusion, that "good" and "evil" only make sense when we consider the divine. Without any God, there is no right or wrong. So, restating what I said - it's not a question of if I could do "good" if there was no God, but rather that there is no such thing as "good" if there is no God.
Naturalists are probably deathly afraid of these conclusions for two reasons:
1. It goes against every fibre of humans, because the truth is we do know good and evil, and that we know it because there is a God. The understanding is so overwhelming that even a logical conclusion denying "good" or "evil" is avoided, because it is counter to what we know a priori.
2. If the naturalist/atheist was to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their beliefs, then it would give great power to their opponents (mostly, theists) in condemning their teachings as insane ramblings, and to label the naturalists/atheists clearly as evildoers and evil promoters.
Agreed.
This part confuses me, because I don't know what IOW stands for, and I don't think I have the same definition for evolution and devolution as you. Can you word it another way please?
Again, I'm confused, possibly by different understandings of the words evolution and devolution.
Selective pressure itself does not cause changes in genes. Mutations do. Higher selective pressure causes the elimination of a number of existing traits, which produces a species more adapted to the environment - less diversity, but more specialised. Is that what you are saying?
Again, see above :)
Definitions aside, do you see how it is possible to interpret the available data as showing rapid speciation and a degredation of the gene pool - both through a loss of diversity, and the introduction of harmful mutations?
Stop trying to insult me in order to win arguments, and make a point.
It's fascinating how all questions on morality boil down to God's existence. With no God, there is no "right" or "wrong". Suddenly everything is neutral. It is then ever so convenient to deny God's existence as an excuse for what you want to excuse, and to then use nonsensical terms like "evil" when you want to appeal to morality, such as when you said most religions are evil institutions. So, which way is it? If you think these organisations are evil, then by what standard or law do you judge them to be evil.
Get a clue. Christianity states that sex is a good thing, and that reproducing is a desire of God. Christianity also states, however, that you are NEVER permitted to sleep with the wife of another man. When you have sex, it is not just a physical thing, but a spiritual binding - "the two become one flesh". This is through the act of sex. Therefore, when a man has sex with a woman who has been with another man, they both commit adultery. There is nothing wrong with sex - you set up a strawman then attack it. The problem is in improper use of it. I don't care what you say - the thought of a man recording his wife (as I heard in one case) act in sex scenes makes me sick and angry.
The whole porn industry in general makes me angry - a comment which is bound to displease many slashdotters, as I know how popular pornography is. After seeing how immoral it is, I cannot say anything good about it. I saw the deception and manipulation that is involved in getting these women involved in acts of depravity they would never normally agree with.
But I just had to counter your point. The objections to pornography are nothing to do with thinking sex is evil. Sex should never be a public thing. Sex should never involve multiple men. It should never involve having sex with another man's wife. It is an evil institution that damages the lives of people who participate in it, and those who view it. Unfortunately a transcript for a story I viewed went into detail on this, but is now not available for viewing by the public. So here is a smaller list of reasons why porn is bad for the viewer.
Of course, when one believes that humans are nothing more than animals, I can offer no argument directly against pornography. But you used the words "created", so you must have some belief in the divine. How many of you porn supporters can honestly say you'd be pleased if your daughter became a porn star, having sex with many different men in her life, for thousands of other men to view?
I can't see anything laudable, praisworthy, edifying, good, or righteous about pornography. I see instead addiction, obsession, lust, debauchery, insecurity, adultery, betrayel.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Or, at least one definition of evolution is (the one typically put forward by darwinists when asked for a scientific theory of evolution). However, this theory says nothing about the direction evolution takes. Through its overuse in the context of the advancement of a species, evolution is assumed to mean a progression. Technically, however, the observational data of evolution does not support that position. It is equally plausible, and indeed more probable, that evolution results in the degeneration of a species.
Under the scenario that I described we would observe rapid changes in species, as we do, but those rapid changes would be accompanied by an increasing amount of harmful mutations entering the gene pool. Many of these would be selected against through natural selection, but not all. Two points of note:e view.html - in case you are interested.
1. This is undoubtedly the reason why the Biblical account of brother and sister marriages would have been no problem in the past, but forbidden at later times, as we now forbid in many places cousins to marry. In the conceivable future this restriction could be made even further as even more harmful mutations enter the gene pool.
2. We know relatively little about biology, and there is one proposal I read about alleles having the ability to produce new variants in a non-harmful way, through recombination. http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationr
Not with careful defining of the terms. Rapid speciation is not devolution. It is merely the reduction of genetic diversity in a gene pool, but with the advantage of specialisation in a particular area or areas. For example, humans of different skin colours being suited to different environments. And diversity can be reintroduced simply by two different species that share a common ancestor interbreeding to have children with greater diversity again. This happens amongst humans, and typically the offspring of mixed races (whether human or animal) are better than the offspring from within races due to far less mutations in common. What the 'devolution' as you call it is, is the introduction of harmful mutations into the gene pool. That is what causes the degeneration.
Not sure what you mean by this, sorry.
It is possible that natural selection slows degeneration of a species, but still helps with the adaptation to the increasingly degenerate world. I don't see rapid speciation as harmful, and in fact it is even an integral part of the darwinist model.
So you affirm my point that all living things are not equal?
I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.
At any rate, while society working together has benefits, betrayel does too. While an individual may find cooperation more useful, that society as a whole may find betrayal and war more beneficial - hence genocide, and the elimination of the weaker.
At any rate, it cannot be said by the darwinist that any action is just or unjust. And here is one absurdity of the darwinist position. No one argues on the pros or cons of a potential war based on the evolutionary damage. Eg, "we should wipe out that race because they are weaker than ours" or, "do not wipe out that race for they are superior to us". Usually it is for more altruistic reasons, "do not wipe out that race because they have done no evil" - even if such an action would produce an advantage for the agressor and a disadvantage if he/she does not act. Instead, we use terms and judgements that affirm the existence of a Creator.
Of course, if evolution is true, then one cannot trust our minds for any reason or logic, since all thoughts will be directed towards survival and reproduction, and not truth or 'good' (whatever that means). That we take for granted we are rational creatures is a result of a belief in God. When one accepts darwinism, there is no more reason to conclude that we have a rational mind, and such terms become meaningless.
betrayel can help the community, in a great number of scenarios, when the betrayel involves one community against another. Even betrayel that benefits the individual may benefit the community in some circumstances. Of course, the only reason I can see that you would want to logically defend behaviour like loyalty and trust is so that darwinists cannot be labelled by their opponents as evil encouragers of wickedness. If darwinists were to truly follow their beliefs to their conclusions, then they could offer no argument against those who wish to do what Christians consider evil.
Of course, that reference leaves no room for the man who has looked, considered, and rejected the findings on reasonable grounds.
I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.
I don't understand this response/reference.
Sure, but it wasn't always this way. The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.
What a strange conception. "god is pro rape or someting"...yes, 'or someting'. Strange as it may seem to you, Christians in general value the life of all people, no matter what race or age. In particular we see a need to defend those who are helpless. The child of a rapist is also a victim. And for that reason alone Christians teach that such children should not be aborted. For the mistakes of another, we do not consider the murder of a child a just recompense. Of course, the standard response may be to call that child just a tissue, or the mother's body, but nothing could be more absurd. Especially when one considers the fact that, even in the mother's womb, the child needs to set up defences because the mother's body naturally desires to reject the foreign body. And the child has it's own DNA. A unique, and valuable life, with a chance to lead a life completely different to that of the rapist who spawned it. Completely separate from the mother, relying on her for sustenance. Not an easy thing for a mother to look after, but it does not justify murder.
Yes, and Gould's motivation for punctuated equillibrium was the fact that the fossil record does not support Darwinist evolution. As Gould said, it shows stasis (no change) and saltation (sudden appearance of creatures). So, I'm still waiting for proof of darwinist evolution. Biologists search for the method in biology on the assumption that darwinist evolution is justified elsewhere - such as the fossil record. But here there is no proof. Each field assumes that the next one has the proof.
Natural selection can be split into these two functions, for purposes of clarifying this debate:
1. Selection of existing traits - Darwin's finches are a good example. This is when a creature inherits traits from its parents, but only those that inherit certain traits have a better chance of survival. This has the dual effect of producing rapid speciation and reducing diversity in the gene pool.
2. Selection of mutations - most mutations are harmful/harmless, and this role of natural selection is to insure that the harmless ones are removed from the gene pool, while the beneficial ones (if such exist) are kept.
Now what you are talking about is the first situation, while I was talking about the second. Selection and adaptation can only go so far before the species is optimally adapted to its environment as far as the gene pool can handle. This has been demonstrated, for example, in the selective breeding of sugar canes by farmers for optimum output. After 100 years of selective breeding, the best possible breed was selected by farmers, and no more amount of selection could improve it.
So if we accept the premise that natural selection performs a slowing function (slowing degredation of a species) rather than enhancing it, then we would see the following:
1. Rapid speciation - the gene pool would initially be large, and offspring would be selected based on the traits they inherited. This is the faster change you noted when there's high selective pressure
2. Slow degeneration - the purity of the gene pool would be reduced, and in a species where the genetic diversity is low we would see greater degredation until inter-species relations re-introduce the initial diversity in the gene pool
To clarify further, there would be over time a slow degredation of the gene pool, but much of this would be masked through the rapid speciation of creatures through the selection of pre-existing traits.
I hope this helps to make sense.
Ultimately I don't believe that the predators of insects are powerful enough to destroy them. This is obvious from reality, and I'm saying that in reality creatures could be devolving. Natural selection would still work to balance things out, as would predators of predators. If a predator feeds off insects, then when the insect population gets low, so would the predators start to die, giving the insects a chance to grow, and so on.
Certainly. Darwin's finches are the best known example. The changes in these birds were the result of selection of pre-existing traits. That form of 'evolution' has nothing to do with the introduction of new traits through mutations that leads to the creation of new species. In other words, it says nothing about common ancestry - because it involved the selection of already existing traits. The example that the finches gaves also coincides perfectly with the creationist model.
To summarise, it is a great evidence for the definition of 'evolution' on talkorigins ("Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."), but not of darwinist evolution, which involves selection of beneficial mutations by which all genetic diversity initially arose. Yet people will point to cases like the finches as proof of that talkorigins definition of evolution and assume that it is proof of other uses of the word 'evolution' which have nothing to do with selection of pre-existing traits.
And how was this something I didn't know? I use the term "Darwinist" as opposed to "evolutionist", because darwinist makes it clear I am talking about that brand of evolution which states that all life descends from a common simple single celled lifeform, and that the method through which this occurred was natural selection of mutations.
How witty of you. Now on to your flawed reasoning...
What about if we took one human who could survive well in both environments and compare him to either one of these people? By your reasoning we'd then have to conclude that he's superior. You neglect to address the problem of other flaws which are not so easily measured, nor so easily interchanged. Take, for example, a mutation which results in internal bleeding after the softest blows. Would you consider that person to be superior or inferior to another who did not have it in that specific area?
If we take your intention with that argument to its conclusions we can then say that a single bacteria is not inferior or superior to a human. Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?
*If* you agree that one living thing can be considered superior or inferior to another (eg, a human vs a rat), then you cannot reasonably draw a line where such comparisons of superiority should end. And if no line can be drawn, then out of any two given humans, one is superior to the other - even if such superiority cannot be measured. If, however, you disagree and say that a human and a rat are equal, then I will be content to consider you either a madman (or woman) or one who is so blind he/she will accept any proposition, no matter how absurd, to defend a lie.
It is my belief that humans will be able to survive in more circumstances, with greater superiority, and achieve more, than rats ever could. If humans and rats were to "wage war" or strive against each other for limitted resources, that my money would be on the humans. And please don't mention the plague - since it is equally possible that humans could carry a disease fatal to rats. I would say humans are superior to rats.
Yes, and some creatures are more capable of surviving in more circumstances with greater results than others. Equality among living things is nonexistent. Is an adult equal with a child? Is a banana equal to a pear?
Nice job. You refuted your own answer with your second paragraph. Troll I could understand, because that comes from the biases inherent in the slashdot crowd. But off-topic was a completely hypocritical moderation. And, it turns out, you agree with me but didn't want to make it look like you did.
Therefore if darwinism is true, we cannot trust our minds to determine that it is true. It defeats itself.
Well, in all honesty, that would make you the fourth such person (the second from today's story, and two from another time), so I'm not sure I want to commit to another conversation. And since you say you may not have much time, it might be in both our interests not to. Still, if you are interested I won't ignore you :) I'll send this to you via email also.
I wish that skeptics would apply their brand of thought to their own beliefs - so quick to criticize followers of religions as chasing after myths, yet so stubbornly refusing to look at their own beliefs.