Abiogenesis, evolution and morality

Originally posted by sonship
Concerning false gods, fake gods, fictional gods, idols -

Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?

Knobs is still thinking on it. or busy.

Fake Gods? What are you on about sonship? Why are you asking me about fake Gods?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, counterfeit money does not prove that real money does not exist. However, the existence of real money does still need to be evidenced.

All gods are fake until you evidence otherwise, something you are yet to do to my satisfaction.

Why that way round? Why should it not be that "All gods are true until proven otherwise.". After all, this is the normal approach in Popper's system, things are falsified rather than verified.

I'm a little wary of your counterfeit money analogy, after all, there really is no point in faking it in a society that does not have real money in the first place. In the case of counterfeit money one has evidence that there is something being copied. In the case of gods the atheist claim is that they do not exist in the first place, so nothing is being copied. I know what you're trying to get at but it's vulnerable to the question: "What is being faked?".

Originally posted by whodey
I think the argument is, we care only if morality benefits us.

If it does not benefit us, then to hell with morality.

If isn't based on anything than it can be anything. Right now people in higher education
can no longer tell boys from girls. If there are no absolutes than whatever comes down
the pipe will do until something else gets flushed our way.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If isn't based on anything than it can be anything. Right now people in higher education
can no longer tell boys from girls. If there are no absolutes than whatever comes down
the pipe will do until something else gets flushed our way.

I'm not defending it, I'm just trying to explain it.

For the secular humanist, there is no right and wrong aside from what they perceive to be beneficial or not beneficial. For the secular humanist, it is beneficial to give gays their marriage rights and transgenders their bathroom rights etc. So it all boils down to perceived personal benefit that is ever changing. As a result, right and wrong is forever changing for the secular humanist. History is a testament to that.

For those of faith, however, they prescribe to a higher power, so that even though they may not perceive a benefit to following a particular morality, they still follow that morality believing that in the end we will benefit.

What gets complicated, however, is when people interpret God's morality to benefit themselves.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm not defending it, I'm just trying to explain it.

For the secular humanist, there is no right and wrong aside from what they perceive to be beneficial or not beneficial. For the secular humanist, it is beneficial to give gays their marriage rights and transgenders their bathroom rights etc. So it all boils down to perceived personal benefit that is ev ...[text shortened]... particular morality, they still follow that morality believing that in the end we will benefit.

People of faith don't prescribe to a higher power, they 'believe' they are prescribing to a higher power.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why that way round? Why should it not be that "All gods are true until proven otherwise.". After all, this is the normal approach in Popper's system, things are falsified rather than verified.

I'm a little wary of your counterfeit money analogy, after all, there really is no point in faking it in a society that does not have real money in the first ...[text shortened]... I know what you're trying to get at but it's vulnerable to the question: "What is being faked?".

Wellington said that 'we should always go before our enemies with confidence, otherwise our apparent uneasiness inspires them with greater boldness.' From this I extrapolate that an atheist should go before a theist with confidence that God does not exist, otherwise our apparent uncertainty with render them intolerable.

And the original counterfeit money analogy was sonship's so have no objection to you highlighting its vulnerability. My own analogies invariably involve sandwiches.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
People of faith don't prescribe to a higher power, they 'believe' they are prescribing to a higher power.

No, you believe that they are only believing that they prescribe to a higher power. 😛

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Wellington said that 'we should always go before our enemies with confidence, otherwise our apparent uneasiness inspires them with greater boldness.' From this I extrapolate that an atheist should go before a theist with confidence that God does not exist, otherwise our apparent uncertainty with render them intolerable.

And the original count ...[text shortened]... objection to you highlighting its vulnerability. My own analogies invariably involve sandwiches.

What the heck is a counterfeit sandwich?

Originally posted by DeepThought
What the heck is a counterfeit sandwich?

http://www.theblackcabinet.org/series/sandwiches/

Originally posted by whodey
I'm not defending it, I'm just trying to explain it.

For the secular humanist, there is no right and wrong aside from what they perceive to be beneficial or not beneficial. For the secular humanist, it is beneficial to give gays their marriage rights and transgenders their bathroom rights etc. So it all boils down to perceived personal benefit that is ev ...[text shortened]...
What gets complicated, however, is when people interpret God's morality to benefit themselves.

That is my point as well, if the only right and wrong is what we want then whatever we think
is the only thing that matters, from who gets to join little girls in the showers, to do I have
to work for a living or live off the tax dollars from those cheaters who have when I don't.

Things only matter if there are real right and wrongs that have nothing to do with what
we think, and reality is not defined just because it is the way we want it between our ears.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
People of faith don't prescribe to a higher power, they 'believe' they are prescribing to a higher power.

So you say!

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is my point as well, if the only right and wrong is what we want then whatever we think
is the only thing that matters, from who gets to join little girls in the showers, to do I have
to work for a living or live off the tax dollars from those cheaters who have when I don't.

Things only matter if there are real right and wrongs that have nothing t ...[text shortened]... at
we think, and reality is not defined just because it is the way we want it between our ears.

After Christ entered the world, morality changed in large part. Charity was then seen as a virtue. Helping the weak and poor became "good" instead of crushing them for personal gain. Of course, people continue to destroy the poor but at least the general morality within society sees this as "wrong" even if they are not religious.

Originally posted by whodey
After Christ entered the world, morality changed in large part. Charity was then seen as a virtue.

Charity as a virtuous concept existed long before Christ. How ignorant can you be?

Of course, people continue to destroy the poor but at least the general morality within society sees this as "wrong" even if they are not religious.
And interestingly enough, the less religions are more charitable.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
People of faith don't prescribe to a higher power, they 'believe' they are prescribing to a higher power.

So we evolved and evolved and at a certain point we created something like a Law of Good Behavior ? Or we could call it a Law of Decent Conduct prescribing how we ought to treat one another ?

Originally posted by DeepThought
What the heck is a counterfeit sandwich?

Anything containing tuna.