Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (1 Viewer)

[mirakon]

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

Values, morality are defined by the society we live in, we can't be 'born' with them. For example different societies place different values on different things (e.g someone earlier claimed that many religious values conflict with their own values).

If we were born with values and morals as you claim as a result of evolution everyone would have the same morals and values to start with and these conflicts wouldn't be so widespread.

 

[Planck]

I'm not even christian, i just find it disgusting that an atheist minority think they are ever so much smarter and more informed than the ignorant religious majority, especially regarding issues like the soul and death that science knows nothig about, but religion at least claims to.

This is the most retarded post I have read in months.

 

[Kwayera]

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

And you think social constructs aren't a product of evolved structures? Um. Incorrect.

Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sociobiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mirakon]

Initially, evolutionary psychology is a theory, it's not a proven fact. If you read the Wikpedia link properly, fellow evolutionists often disagree with it (see bottom at 'Controversies')

Morality has a very subtle, if not non-existent link to survival. The leader of a pack of dogs can survive only by being the biggest and the strongest and can exhibit immoral behaviour by enforcing totalitarian rule over the other dogs of the pack simply because he is the biggest and strongest. Thus, morality is nto necessary for survival and hence animals do not require evolution in moralistic behaviour.

Social constructs have very little to do with evolution, especially theoretical concepts such as morality. Morality exists as a system of thought. It's like claiming that that people are born 'cool', that people are born 'evil', that people are born atheist etc.

 

[Planck]

that people are born atheist etc.

I'd say all people are born agnostic...

 

[mirakon]

In a sense, although they don't know it. I would say they are born apatheistic.

 

[Planck]

In a sense, although they don't know it. I would say they are born apatheistic.

Which is further to say, that they're all born atheist because they're not aware of the concept of a god.

Just as I am a- everything I'm not aware of the existence of.

 

[Kwayera]

Initially, evolutionary psychology is a theory, it's not a proven fact. If you read the Wikpedia link properly, fellow evolutionists often disagree with it (see bottom at 'Controversies')

There are some biologists who don't believe in evolution. Point? Also, check your definition of the word "theory" in this context.

Morality has a very subtle, if not non-existent link to survival. The leader of a pack of dogs can survive only by being the biggest and the strongest and can exhibit immoral behaviour by enforcing totalitarian rule over the other dogs of the pack simply because he is the biggest and strongest. Thus, morality is nto necessary for survival and hence animals do not require evolution in moralistic behaviour.

That is utterly incorrect, actually - in dogs and wolves, and in apes like chimpanzees, being a leader of the pack involves much more than being big and strong. It requires social intelligence, explained by the social game theory that dictates altruism. Totaliatarian societies don't and can't exist when your rivals can and do gang up on you, however strong you are.

Morality has a huge link to survival in social societies with sufficient sophistication (and increasing sophistication and the complexities of societal relationships drives intelligence).

Social constructs have very little to do with evolution, especially theoretical concepts such as morality. Morality exists as a system of thought. It's like claiming that that people are born 'cool', that people are born 'evil', that people are born atheist etc.

Incorrect. And all people are born inherently (agnostically) atheist - it's the default position.

In conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[mirakon]

There are some biologists who don't believe in evolution. Point? Also, check your definition of the word "theory" in this context.

The point is that you can't assert that evolution is definitely true anyway. You can believe in it, but you cannot determine that it is absolutely true and hence you cannot use it to disprove any arguments.

In evolution is not a fact. It may well be true, but as for now this cannot be determined.

Also, people are born apatheistic. This means that when a baby first comes out of the womb, he doesn't question the state of the Universe, who created it etc.. He simply doesn't care. Which is true. There is a subtle difference between atheism and apatheism.

'That is utterly incorrect, actually - in dogs and wolves, and in apes like chimpanzees, being a leader of the pack involves much more than being big and strong. It requires social intelligence'

In addition you fail to realise the difference between social intelligence and morality. Social intelligence requires you to defy morality in many instances. Politicians are high in social intelligence, but they aren't all necessarily moral people for example.

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb. Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Morality is ever changing. The values of society are ever-changing. Such topics are completely subjective there is no such thing as definitive 'right' or 'wrong' behavioru and therefore cannot be explained objectively in reference to the physical changes that are results of evolution.

Also, how do you define sophistication? Is morality really sophistication? Just because humans have it does it make it a quality of sophistication? How do you know it's not one of the traits we haven't evolved in? How do you know evolution is a fact in the first place?

 

[Kwayera]

The point is that you can't assert that evolution is definitely true anyway. You can believe in it, but you cannot determine that it is absolutely true and hence you cannot use it to disprove any arguments.

In evolution is not a fact. It may well be true, but as for now this cannot be determined.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[Ayatollah]

There are some biologists who don't believe in evolution.

precisely why it's called a 'theory', as opposed to 'fact'

That is utterly incorrect, actually - in dogs and wolves, and in apes like chimpanzees, being a leader of the pack involves much more than being big and strong. It requires social intelligence, explained by the social game theory that dictates altruism. Totaliatarian societies don't and can't exist when your rivals can and do gang up on you, however strong you are.

Tell that to the poor lady who had her face and arms ripped of by a so-called 'domesticated' cimpanzee? By your theory it should have been out working in some soup kitchen helping the homeless. God tell us that we are keepers of the animals, and it is us who is responsible for their wellbeing. You should know this because you study marine biology, which is truely gods work.

Morality has a huge link to survival in social societies with sufficient sophistication (and increasing sophistication and the complexities of societal relationships drives intelligence).

of course morality is linked with survival, without it there'd be pandimonium. This is precisely why God sent us Jesus, he told us how to act, to live with our fellow man. Do you thinks it's just a coincedence that before Jesus, and before the ten commandment, humans were in the war/poverty equilibrium?

Incorrect. And all people are born inherently (agnostically) atheist - it's the default position.

I'm sorry, but a baby does not 'believe there is no god', a baby does not think of such things, they arent capable. Babies and children should be free to decide, faith should always be encouraged, and charity always upheld, your equally dogmatic militant athiesm should not be imposed on them just as wahhabi Islam should not be imposed on them.

 

[mirakon]

It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations....It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Note the last section of the quote. It isn't precisely proven. It isn't exactly a fact, there is simply a likelihood that it's a fact. Actually, thank you, because this quote actually makes evident the limitations of scientific thought, that nothing can really be proven scientifically. If you disagree with this section of the quote then it's reasonable to deduce this source (which you referred to) is unreliable. Either way you're wrong.

However, I do respect your capacity to argue effectively. +rep for you!

 

[Kwayera]

Tell that to the poor lady who had her face and arms ripped of by a so-called 'domesticated' cimpanzee? By your theory it should have been out working in some soup kitchen helping the homeless. God tell us that we are keepers of the animals, and it is us who is responsible for their wellbeing. You should know this because you study marine biology, which is truely gods work.

wat

 

[Kwayera]

Note the last section of the quote. It isn't precisely proven. It isn't exactly a fact, there is simply a likelihood that it's a fact. Actually, thank you, because this quote actually makes evident the limitations of scientific thought, that nothing can really be proven scientifically. If you disagree with this section of the quote then it's reasonable to deduce this source (which you referred to) is unreliable. Either way you're wrong.

However, I do respect your capacity to argue effectively. +rep for you!

Not really. "Prove" in a scientific context means describe mathematically. You can describe the progression of genes and the physical mechanisms of evolution mathematically, but you can't describe evolution as a whole mathematically.

"Prove", in this context, is therefore a meaningless distinction.

 

[mirakon]

See but there you create a contradiction. You can describe evolution mathematically, but you cannot describe morality mathematically. Hence evolution and morality are exclusive.

 

[Kwayera]

See but there you create a contradiction. You can describe evolution mathematically, but you cannot describe morality mathematically. Hence evolution and morality are exclusive.

Uh. No?

And I just said that you can't describe evolution mathematically, which is why it can't be proved. You can describe certain mechanisms that make up evolution, but not evolution.

 

[Ayatollah]

yes well said mirakon
Sister Kwayera must be unfamiliar with our mathimatical proof of god.

0=x
divide both sides by zero
0=(x/0)

now (x/0) is equal to inifinity, and the LHS is equal to zero. How can this be?
This means only infinity (i.e god) could exist at t=0.

 

[mirakon]

Do you then admit that evolution cannot be proved? Then it is not a fact. Therefore you cannot use it to assert a point of view.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

So should we show respect for islamic beliefs and practices, such as the right of a man to beat his wife if she doesn't want to have sex with him?

Islam Watch - "No Such Thing as Rape in Islam; Beat Them (Lightly) to Force Them to Bed" by Denis Schulz

Administering corporal punishment for women not covering faces, adultery, even victims of rape etc...?

Under what circumstances should we respect and tolerate evil?

I use islamic examples, but many christian values are just as abhorrent, though obviously you will be as blind as an islamic sheik to why criticism and disrespect for your religion is entirely valid.

What you just pointed out are 'practices' of religion.

And yes I do agree that some extreme 'practices' of other religions are not acceptable such as the one that you pointed out.

However what I was talking about was 'beliefs'. There's a difference between the 'beliefs' of a religion and its 'practices'. What I was saying was that non - believers shouldn't pay disrespect to the 'beliefs' of other people.

I'am Catholic and I can confidently say that there are no abhorent 'practices' in Christianity.

 

[mirakon]

Sister Kwayera must be unfamiliar with our mathimatical proof of god.

0=x
divide both sides by zero
0=(x/0)

now (x/0) is equal to inifinity, and the LHS is equal to zero. How can this be?
This means only infinity (i.e god) could exist at t=0.

No offense Ayatollah, but that proof is incorrect. It is a mathematical error to divide both sides by zero. It defies the basic axioms of mathematics.