My 'gripe' is both. The moral biblical standards are not consistent. I'm talking about the morals of the biblical god himself. Why would he condone stoning to death, and then later advocate commuting the sentence of stoning. That is immoral, in and of itself. If it is later wrong to stone someone, then it is wrong to advocate stoning in the first place. Further, a moral all powerful god would not have created a world where he thought people would need stoning to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Like I said, God's "morals" are the same and absolute- adultery is and always will be bad, for example. However, how God dealt with that sin is what changed after Jesus arrived. Changing the rules of punishment doesn't mean the morals have changed. It isn't wrong or inconsistent on God's part to do that. In fact, it's a gift that he did, and that is the gospel message.TexasScientist said:How are God's morals the same and absolute? If they were the same and absolute, he would never have condoned stoning in the first place. He would never have created a "sinful" world where stoning or sacrifice was even needed for atonement. An all loving moral god wouldn't have created a world of pain and suffering. He would have just created the state of the paradise hereafter, from the very beginning. It's not moral for god to sacrifice his son when it's unnecessary to begin with. It's simply not rational and begs of myth.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:God's "morals" are the same, and absolute. It's the punishment for breaking his "morals" that may change. Before Jesus came, stoning was the punishment, as ordered by God. Now that Jesus was there, it was he himself who was to take the punishment for her, on the cross. Jesus was now going to pay the price for the sin, instead of the sinner. That's the message of the gospel, and you missed it.TexasScientist said:BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Of course God's morals are subjective and not absolute. The adulteress is a great example, otherwise he would have ordered her to be stoned.
You seem to be changing your gripe, however. Your response above isn't about the consistency of God's "morals" but rather about why God allows evil in the first place. This has already been discussed between you and others in previous threads, so it doesn't need to be rehashed here. Go back and review their answers, which were very good.
Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity
47,988 Views |
723 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
Again, you are focusing on the Abrahamic religions. Others do change over time.quash said:It claims to be unchanging: see above.Sam Lowry said:Different in that religion doesn't claim to be scientific.quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
But in any case, faith in an eternal God cannot be said to be the same thing as stubborn insistence that men in lab coats are always more trustworthy than ordinary people who believe.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
I trust those who are qualified in treating the health in question. And since health is often intensely personal, there is often no "objective science" in making the right health decision, but rather informed judgment, with experience and patient involvement vital to making the best decision.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
To put it another way, just as I do not rely on my urologist to address a loved one's emotional trauma, so too I would not rely on a lab specialist to make moral decisions.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment. Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory) and thus understanding psychology as a branch of biology. - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychologyATL Bear said:There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Your example is not conducive to organized cultural groups. We evolved past the point (mostly) of running hut to hut procreating. Neuroscience is progressively revealing how our brains evolve, the way we process information, learn, and respond to problems and stimuli.
You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
I don't know about you, but most of us here were raised to believe the prevailing views on Christianity, and that it is wrong and even sinful to question conventional Christian norms. We organize into social groups and start early with children reinforcing those cultural beliefs, and teach them to dismiss any idea or evidence that runs contrary to reinforcement of those beliefs. It's the same across the global religious spectrum, where your beliefs are largely a product of birth locality. The great thing about our country is it is not, and was not organized as a theocracy. The fact that it is a secular democratic republic is why it is so successful. Science has advanced to the point that it is exposing the fallacy of religious myths and superstition, and that is troubling to those who have been firmly imbedded with religious beliefs, in order to cope with life and mortality.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense? Upon my apostasy I did not rape the first woman I saw nor murder her first defender.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
"It's the same across the global religious spectrum, where your beliefs are largely a product of birth locality."TexasScientist said:I don't know about you, but most of us here were raised to believe the prevailing views on Christianity, and that it is wrong and even sinful to question conventional Christian norms. We organize into social groups and start early with children reinforcing those cultural beliefs, and teach them to dismiss any idea or evidence that runs contrary to reinforcement of those beliefs. It's the same across the global religious spectrum, where your beliefs are largely a product of birth locality. The great thing about our country is it is not, and was not organized as a theocracy. The fact that it is a secular democratic republic is why it is so successful. Science has advanced to the point that it is exposing the fallacy of religious myths and superstition, and that is troubling to those who have been firmly imbedded with religious beliefs, in order to cope with life and mortality.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
100% agree with this assertion. Nevertheless, you cannot demonstrate that the origin of your personal values/morals/beliefs have any greater "truth" than mine, and are just as faith-based as are mine. You hide behind "science" and try desperately to convince yourself and others that we live in a completely materialist universe; a claim you cannot possibly prove, but must accept on faith.
FWIW, I'm not keen on a theocracy. I'd prefer extremely limited governments at all levels that leave individuals free to follow their consciences without compelling them to participate in matters with which they disagree.
My inner historian would argue with "The fact that it is a secular democratic republic is why it is so successful", but not willing to make the effort at this time, btw.
Thank you for making the case for Imago Dei.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense? Upon my apostasy I did not rape the first woman I saw nor murder her first defender.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
As created by man.curtpenn said:Thank you for making the case for Imago Dei.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense? Upon my apostasy I did not rape the first woman I saw nor murder her first defender.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Or, so your faith teaches you.quash said:As created by man.curtpenn said:Thank you for making the case for Imago Dei.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense? Upon my apostasy I did not rape the first woman I saw nor murder her first defender.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
I've seen the definition before, but am an opponent to the idea of evolutionary psychology as theoretical bunk. Longer separate discussion, but It's conflating/projecting social structure onto human behavior unsupported by evolutionary or innate tendencies.TexasScientist said:Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment. Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory) and thus understanding psychology as a branch of biology. - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychologyATL Bear said:There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Your example is not conducive to organized cultural groups. We evolved past the point (mostly) of running hut to hut procreating. Neuroscience is progressively revealing how our brains evolve, the way we process information, learn, and respond to problems and stimuli.
As far as "hut hopping", we still have that innate instinct, and evolution is much more supported by continuing the practice than refraining from it. This is where the discussion of individual conscience and it's direction/source comes into play.
Regarding the neuroscience you discuss, I'm not seeing an evolutionary tie in. I certainly see the biology of it. The brain, like a muscle in the body, is going to react to heightened stimulation of areas due to any number of factors. However, as an analogy, just because someone works out and builds larger muscles doesn't mean they're evolving into a new types of muscles. But if that's what you're arguing is evolutionary psychology, adjusting to different stimulation, then I guess you could call it adaptive neurology, but I don't see evolution (macro) in this equation.
We'd all be invisible if Imago Dei were true.curtpenn said:Or, so your faith teaches you.quash said:As created by man.curtpenn said:Thank you for making the case for Imago Dei.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense? Upon my apostasy I did not rape the first woman I saw nor murder her first defender.curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
And without religion we're devolving right back.TexasScientist said:We evolved past the point (mostly) of running hut to hut procreating.ATL Bear said:There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
We disagree.ATL Bear said:I've seen the definition before, but am an opponent to the idea of evolutionary psychology as theoretical bunk. Longer separate discussion, but It's conflating/projecting social structure onto human behavior unsupported by evolutionary or innate tendencies.TexasScientist said:Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment. Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory) and thus understanding psychology as a branch of biology. - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychologyATL Bear said:There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Your example is not conducive to organized cultural groups. We evolved past the point (mostly) of running hut to hut procreating. Neuroscience is progressively revealing how our brains evolve, the way we process information, learn, and respond to problems and stimuli.
As far as "hut hopping", we still have that innate instinct, and evolution is much more supported by continuing the practice than refraining from it. This is where the discussion of individual conscience and it's direction/source comes into play.
Regarding the neuroscience you discuss, I'm not seeing an evolutionary tie in. I certainly see the biology of it. The brain, like a muscle in the body, is going to react to heightened stimulation of areas due to any number of factors. However, as an analogy, just because someone works out and builds larger muscles doesn't mean they're evolving into a new types of muscles. But if that's what you're arguing is evolutionary psychology, adjusting to different stimulation, then I guess you could call it adaptive neurology, but I don't see evolution (macro) in this equation.
Hominid evolution is obvious in the fossil record and in our genetics. With humans, the brain has evolved to the point of heightened self awareness and cognizance. The Neanderthals are a dead end of this process, except to the extent that in some of European descent have 2 - 3% of Neanderthal genes.
It's clear from the earliest archeological and paleontologic evidence, that hominid capabilities have advanced with the progressive ability to communicate, work with tools, and solve increasingly complex problems. Advancement (evolving cerebral capacity and capabilities) in intellectual capacity and other physical attributes are clearly what set Homo sapiens apart from other hominids, which have not yet evolved cerebrally to the extent of Homo sapiens. Neuroscience, to the extent it address cerebral processes and functions, including brain science and cognitive psychology, shed light on understanding evolutionary processes and advancement within hominids.
All the more reason to arm one's self and tribe.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
Given our fallen state, don't see much point in that. But, hey, you keep up your faith in that.TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
They don't really shed light other than to try to squeeze one theory into another theory. What would shed light is a time frame that realistically allows for a tripling of the size of the brain in a random mutated environment followed by a shrinking with cognitive improvement. The cognitive improvement could be answered by neural stimulation, but even that requires brain mutation that we've not really detected in the 20,000 years of our own current construct. In other words, not only a mutation of hominid capabilities, but enough duplicative reproduction to provide the next pool of size for mutation to occur in a random environment that allows for the next iteration of volume in order to survive, and on and on. This is just a simple example of the problem of the genetic math horizon. When we move to even more dramatic mutation, it really busts the idea up because we understand the complicated cell processes that must be altered/created in order for mutation to become part of the genome.TexasScientist said:We disagree.ATL Bear said:I've seen the definition before, but am an opponent to the idea of evolutionary psychology as theoretical bunk. Longer separate discussion, but It's conflating/projecting social structure onto human behavior unsupported by evolutionary or innate tendencies.TexasScientist said:Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment. Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory) and thus understanding psychology as a branch of biology. - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychologyATL Bear said:There's no such thing as evolutionary psychology. As a counter to your example, evolutionary advantage is actually benefitted more by the strongest/optimal males procreating with as many females as they can. Monogamy is anti-evolutionary. Humans have organized differently due to non evolutionary influences. That fact can't be denied.TexasScientist said:
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Your example is not conducive to organized cultural groups. We evolved past the point (mostly) of running hut to hut procreating. Neuroscience is progressively revealing how our brains evolve, the way we process information, learn, and respond to problems and stimuli.
As far as "hut hopping", we still have that innate instinct, and evolution is much more supported by continuing the practice than refraining from it. This is where the discussion of individual conscience and it's direction/source comes into play.
Regarding the neuroscience you discuss, I'm not seeing an evolutionary tie in. I certainly see the biology of it. The brain, like a muscle in the body, is going to react to heightened stimulation of areas due to any number of factors. However, as an analogy, just because someone works out and builds larger muscles doesn't mean they're evolving into a new types of muscles. But if that's what you're arguing is evolutionary psychology, adjusting to different stimulation, then I guess you could call it adaptive neurology, but I don't see evolution (macro) in this equation.
Hominid evolution is obvious in the fossil record and in our genetics. With humans, the brain has evolved to the point of heightened self awareness and cognizance. The Neanderthals are a dead end of this process, except to the extent that in some of European descent have 2 - 3% of Neanderthal genes.
It's clear from the earliest archeological and paleontologic evidence, that hominid capabilities have advanced with the progressive ability to communicate, work with tools, and solve increasingly complex problems. Advancement (evolving cerebral capacity and capabilities) in intellectual capacity and other physical attributes are clearly what set Homo sapiens apart from other hominids, which have not yet evolved cerebrally to the extent of Homo sapiens. Neuroscience, to the extent it address cerebral processes and functions, including brain science and cognitive psychology, shed light on understanding evolutionary processes and advancement within hominids.
We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.Sam Lowry said:No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
I'm afraid that's about as wrong as it gets.quash said:We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.Sam Lowry said:No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
Agree to disagree strongly.Sam Lowry said:I'm afraid that's about as wrong as it gets.quash said:We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.Sam Lowry said:No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Or you and TS here ...quash said:We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.Sam Lowry said:No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
So, a complete revamping of human nature.
Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?
The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.JXL said:TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
So, a complete revamping of human nature.
Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?
AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.TexasScientist said:The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.JXL said:TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
So, a complete revamping of human nature.
Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.Oldbear83 said:Or you and TS here ...quash said:We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.Sam Lowry said:No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.quash said:All the more reason to keep state separate from the church.Sam Lowry said:No, not immediately. At first they cling to the content of Christian morality without realizing it no longer has any philosophical basis. Then they begin to whittle away at whichever aspects are least pleasing to them. They splinter into tribes organized around race, class, or sex. Finally, when they're desperate for some organizing principle, the religious impulse reasserts itself and they rush to offer their blood sacrifices to the almighty state. The pattern has repeated itself several times since the Enlightenment - in France, Germany, Russia, and if we're not lucky here in America.quash said:Do you really think that men untethered from the bollard of eternal damnation immediately lose their evolved moral sense?curtpenn said:You may tilt at straw men all you like, but your edifice of "reason" with a veneer of science is ultimately built on a foundation comprised of your wholly personal and arbitrary values/morals. Circularity at its finest with a dollop of Scientism on full display.TexasScientist said:I would take informed opinion based upon objective science over opinion based upon faith in supernatural belief. Do you rely on medical science opinions, or religious faith for opinions about health?curtpenn said:quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Yes. And your personal opinion is in no way more objective or scientific. That's kind of my point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Machine learning sez Hi.Oldbear83 said:AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.TexasScientist said:The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.JXL said:TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
So, a complete revamping of human nature.
Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Because a human programmed it so.quash said:Machine learning sez Hi.Oldbear83 said:AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.TexasScientist said:The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.JXL said:TexasScientist said:
All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.
So, a complete revamping of human nature.
Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier