Evolution Brought About Morality ?

Originally posted by sonship
I think you are begging the question by assuming up front naturalism.
I think you are begging the question by assuming up front atheism.
Both are your presuppositional stances from which you work.

But I am quite clearly NOT begging the question. I am presenting the evidence. And it points towards evolution as the best explanation. And it is notable that you have no real response to that whatsoever. Not once have you addressed the issue that human and animal behaviour matches the predictions of evolution and not the predictions of theology. Instead you come up with this incoherent mumbling about 'begging the question'. Zero actual response, zero actual argument.

As I work through this response I will see if you answer the question about the RULES being completely different IF Evolution had it to do all over again. Possibly you replied. But I am working down through the post.
What a time waster you can be. A whole paragraph speculating about what you might read in the post you are responding to.

This makes no sense to me. "Hence religion" ?
Religion is a good example of something that arose via religion but is not truth. Evolution, as you said, does not require truth.

This too makes little sense to me.
There is nothing objectively true about the claim that raping babies is wrong. You may intuitively feel that it is true, but that is as far as you can go.

The fact that some depraved humans rape babies does not justify it.
And evolution doesn't require justification. Theology does.

Objective moral standard does not mean that that standard is always lived UP to.
But it would seem sensible that a God created moral standard would always be lived up to. Whereas one that resulted from evolution, would not.

And just because animals do something is no excuse that humans should do all the same things.
And you will note that I have not suggested otherwise. You are arguing with yourself as usual.

We could not tolerate a society in which we excuse all our crimes because we can find some vague parallel in the animal world.
For good reason. We need cooperation. So we punish those that do not cooperate.

Seeking to be wise you dehumanize people.
Failing to read, you falsely accuse me of things I have never said nor done. Learn to read before you make false accusations or this conversation will end.

It is evil because it is over indulgence to the uttermost. it is against all limits of the decency scope within which sexual pleasure should be sought.
You clearly missed what I said. I didn't say 'why is it evil'. I said that you would call it evil in order to explain it. Instead of trying to explain it, you are trying to explain why you call it evil.

I would say the sense of the perversion of child rape is as secure as the sensory perception that gravity will pull us down to the ground.
Yet people still do it. How do you explain it?

Your philosophy really renders ethics illusory.
No, it doesn't. It is your, invented strawman version of my philosophy that renders ethics illusory.

He said Americans did much the same to the Native American Indians.
He was right. They did.

You are coming along with your Atheism and Evolution and saying that it was evil, is not truth.
No, I am not.
I am saying it is evil, but it is not objectively wrong. And no, it is not my 'Atheism and Evolution' that is saying that either.

Unfortunately, as seen above it dehumanizes even yourself.
Unfortunately that is all in your mind and has nothing to do with me. You don't read my posts, but instead try and imagine what you would be like were you an atheist and then attribute all your own fears and illogical conclusions to me. Then if I point that out, you go off on a rant about how I never fully explain my position - even though I have, but you ignored it.

You don't seem to want to accept that human beings are qualitatively not chickens and cows.
Not true.

Why does Atheism always dehumanize us ?
Not true.

I embrace Christian theology because I want to have the courage to be a man.
Exactly. Not because you think its true, but because you want it to be true, because you are so scared of atheism dehumanizing you that you see the demons everywhere you look. If you actually took the time to think, you would find reality is not really as scary as you think. You can be a human and an atheist too. I don't rape babies any more than you do.

How can you "assure me" ? You haven't witnessed this.
Not all knowledge comes from personal witness. Surely after years in this forum you know at least that much?

It is impossible to really condemn any evil act in your world-view.
False.

Nor can you really praise love, brotherhood, self-control.
False.

All things are permitted in your religion, in your "Spirituality" which you constantly preach on this Forum.
False.

So we know that for twhitehead there is really nothing wrong with raping someone.
False.

Why such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom, so humans are justified.

False.

That's your Spirituality here offered as an alternative to belief in God. This I would consider sick.
What I consider sick, is your constantly attributing to me views I do not hold. It is dishonest of you.

Lying is also frowned upon. And by saying the Bible approved of rape in any sense, let alone child rape is your lie.
You may not be lying, but you are wrong. The Bible does approve of relationships between under age children and adults. Deny it all you like, but it is a fact.

That is one reason why I don't read some of your posts, They contain lies.
Well, if you don't read them, then don't then claim I haven't said things, and don't make up what you think I have said.

And no, I did not lie. I may occasionally be wrong, but I, unlike you, do not say things that I know to be wrong.

And, as usual, I expect an apology for that obviously false accusation (a lie on your part) - or a demonstration that I lied. ie you must demonstrate that you have good reason to believe that I do not actually believe that the Bible approves of sexual relationships between an adult and a person under the age of 18.

Originally posted by sonship
Is this statement objectively right ?

Silly word games. Do not confuse 'wrong' and 'false'. They may mean the same thing in certain contexts, but that is not the case in the context of this thread in which my statement was made.

Originally posted by twhitehead

But I am quite clearly NOT begging the question. I am presenting the evidence. And it points towards evolution as the best explanation. And it is notable that you have no real response to that whatsoever. Not once have you addressed the issue that human and animal behaviour matches the predictions of evolution and not the predictions of theology. Instead you come up with this incoherent mumbling about 'begging the question'. Zero actual response, zero actual argument.

Where did you mention "the predictions of theology" ? In what post ?

Religion is a good example of something that arose via religion but is not truth. Evolution, as you said, does not require truth.

Religion arose via religion ? Does this make any sense ?

What was the phrase you just used ? "mumbo jumbo" ?

There is nothing objectively true about the claim that raping babies is wrong. You may intuitively feel that it is true, but that is as far as you can go.

So you are really not a decent person ? I mean there is nothing objectively true about twhitehead being a good man ?

Yes ?
No ? You are really a good man ??

And evolution doesn't require justification. Theology does.

Blindwatchmaker macro evolution requires evidence. You didn't SEE it take place. You cannot repeat it.

Don't complain that you couldn't LIVE long enough to see Evolution blind watchmaker style go from goo to you. That's your problem.

You didn't observe it.
You have a belief that it took place.

And your flies with extra wings and germs resistant to chemicals did not evolve except by the intelligent engineering of designers of experiments.

But it would seem sensible that a God created moral standard would always be lived up to. Whereas one that resulted from evolution, would not.

It would be sensible. But if there is damage to the man created or another WILL is present to tempt man off in another direction, it might not.

There is something we call the fall of man.
And man was damaged, received a foreign damaging something into his being, and was attached to a Nemesis against God.

Man was forewarned. This is all in the Bible. But you don't take it as worthy of serious consideration.

For good reason. We need cooperation. So we punish those that do not cooperate.

Too simplistic an answer. The soldiers by the thousands in Rwanda cooperated to carry out mass raping women of undesireable tribes - a form of genocide.

In South Africa the whites cooperated to practice apartied.

In US the Europeans cooperated to exterminate the Native Americans and confiscate all their land.

Cooperation in and of itself is not always right.

You clearly missed what I said. I didn't say 'why is it evil'. I said that you would call it evil in order to explain it. Instead of trying to explain it, you are trying to explain why you call it evil.

You sometimes sound like one of the characters in Through the Looking Glass or Alice in Wonderland.

I am not going to waste too much time on deciphering this double talk.

me: I would say the sense of the perversion of child rape is as secure as the sensory perception that gravity will pull us down to the ground.


tw: Yet people still do it. How do you explain it?

I explain it with the revelation of the Bible. It says we were fallen and became constituted sinners against God.

And I believe it. The moral ought and the transcendent moral standard as shown in the law of God is STILL there.

No, it doesn't. It is your, invented strawman version of my philosophy that renders ethics illusory.

Simply wrong. In your philosophy there is no REAL objective evil or REAL objective goodness.

That thought is at best an illusion. There is, according to you, only the expediency of survival via Evolution.

Don't blame me for recognizing the stark implications of your world view. I am just following your logic.

And I am not the only one. Some ATHEISTS themselves would say in like manner. But you run away from quotes.

He said Americans did much the same to the Native American Indians.
He was right. They did.

Sure they did.
And it was wrong then and wrong in Germany. No?

According to your view is was not REALLY wrong. I think we better go with it was REALLY wrong objectively.

Do you think we could have a society where we did not JUDGE anyone because, after all, we did similar things?

The nations HAD to have a Nuremberg trials. Not because they were without sin. They HAD to judge to condemn and discourage this REAL WRONGDOING to others in the future.

You are coming along with your Atheism and Evolution and saying that it was evil, is not truth.

No, I am not.
I am saying it is evil, but it is not objectively wrong. ...

Is it really objectively evil ?

Go try to tell some of your Jewish friends that the Holocaust was not objectively wrong.
Come back and tell us what kind of reaction you got from your Jewish friends.

Unfortunately that is all in your mind and has nothing to do with me. You don't read my posts, but instead try and imagine what you would be like were you an atheist and then attribute all your own fears and illogical conclusions to me. Then if I point that out, you go off on a rant about how I never fully explain my position - even though I have, but you ignored it.

How much further do I have to read than to read the Holocaust was evil yet NOT "objectively wrong" ?

If it wasn't "objectively wrong" then why do you say it was evil ?

Originally posted by sonship
And I believe it. The moral ought and the transcendent moral standard as shown in the law of God is STILL there.

And yet you still lie. Why?

edit:
You say you believe it, but you don't act like you believe it. You act like you want really really badly to believe it, but just can't quite get there. You also act like you are terrified of all the conclusions you have dreamed up that atheism must lead to.