Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The difference between a human and a rock
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 1 of 102 (538972)
12-12-2009 1:19 AM


If you are atheist, and you believe in true Darwinian evolution, from the cradle to the grave so to speak, (with possible scenarios of how life began such as Dawkin's precept of silicone sticking together more in some conditions than others, or any other type of rudimentary copying mechanism forming) up to the point of blind mutations creating random mistakes of genetic copying, then what exactly makes any natural form any more valuable than another?
Do things "deserve" to live? Why would smashing apart a rock be any different than smashing out a life, when in fact they are just different versions of the same thing?
Note, if anyone wishes to hedge on the "randomness" aspect of life forming, then be prepared to defend that assertion.
Edited by Admin, : Fix title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 12-12-2009 7:08 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 5:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 12-13-2009 8:23 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 10:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 4:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2009 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 65 by Jon, posted 12-14-2009 4:47 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 67 by Briterican, posted 12-14-2009 6:21 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 74 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-15-2009 4:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 3 of 102 (539022)
12-12-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
12-12-2009 7:08 AM


Your editing of my title is most appropriate; as would be better reading glasses for myself.
I think the debate must necessarily be directed at atheists who believe in Darwinian evolution, and still hold a belief of morality or value to life. I think I can already understand where a theistic evolutionist gets their moral beliefs. I suppose agnostics are free to comment as they see fit.
I guess I am saying I prefer to stick to the original spirit of the post, as I also have a preference for the more visceral implications of smashing a rock.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 12-12-2009 7:08 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 6 of 102 (539112)
12-13-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2009 5:45 AM


Yes, but the only reason that people and birds, and butterflies don't want to be smashed is because it is a convenient survival mindset.
And besides, they don't want to be smashed, but what is the importance of satisfying the wishes of what any particular things want. Gazelles don't want to be eaten by Tigers, but what does the Tiger care?
As to your second point, I don't believe any 'fundies" as you say, believe that people "should" burn in hell, they probably believe that they will burn in hell. It is not their choice. Plus any fundamentalists extreme views about what religion might wrath is not really pertinent to why an atheist believes a life contains value beyond the fact that it just exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 5:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 6:19 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 6:52 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 11:54 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 8 of 102 (539115)
12-13-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
12-13-2009 6:19 AM


Ok, so for you, the only reason not to smash someone or otherwise harm them is simply to keep yourself safer. That's one point of view.
Any reason not to hurt someone other than this? What if you knew you could do it secretly with no one knowing it was you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 6:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 6:42 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 12 of 102 (539121)
12-13-2009 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate
12-13-2009 6:52 AM


I really wasn't asking you (or anyone) to explain or justify what beliefs a Christian fundamentalist might or might not have-I think let them speak for themselves.
I was asking atheists why they believe a human deserves more compassion than a rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 6:52 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 7:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 16 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 7:09 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 7:20 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 14 of 102 (539123)
12-13-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
12-13-2009 6:42 AM


So do you think there is a specific mutation for empathy or for love? Do you think we can one day find where that point mutation, or DNA insertion or deletion for the love gene first appeared?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 6:42 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 7:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 15 of 102 (539124)
12-13-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate
12-13-2009 6:56 AM


Why do you care what's good for the human race? Rocks don't care what's good for other rocks, and Tigers don't care what is good for giraffes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 6:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 7:20 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 20 of 102 (539131)
12-13-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate
12-13-2009 7:20 AM


Humans are one of the few species to have risen to the capacity to be able to care for other species.
Its interesting that you use the term risen.
In what sense is this a form of rising? There really isn't a quality of goodness to the sense of empathy, or sadness or emotion. In fact these emotions are much more of a burden. if we don't have them it would be much better. Then if people died we wouldn't care, and then we really could have survival of the fittest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 7:20 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 12:25 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 42 by Son Goku, posted 12-13-2009 1:49 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 21 of 102 (539132)
12-13-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
12-13-2009 7:20 AM


Do you think this innateness arose from a chance genetic mistake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 7:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 8:54 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 24 of 102 (539135)
12-13-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
12-13-2009 8:54 AM


So you believe, in the just so stories of Darwinian evolution, that somewhere in the history of advanced life forms such as primates, or the like, that an individual was born with a unique mutation, that caused it to have feelings of empathy, where none ever existed before. And because of this empathy this one individual carried, it had a selective advantage for survival- and thus this trait became a norm? I wonder why this would carry any selective advantage?
Either way, whatever selective advantage it might have incurred at that time, that advantage is surely lost by now-in much the same way any advantage hair might have had as a selective advantage, it is now longer really necessary. Perhaps this remnant mutation might one day phase it self out of the population, as it is really no longer necessary. Surely moral people don't have any better chance of giving birth than immoral people do, do they. In fact the opposite must be true. If you are immoral enough to sleep with whoever you can, with whatever trickery you can conjure up, you will likely create more babies.
And, since we realize that this unusual feeling of empathy is really just a genetic mistake from some long ago primate or hyena, we now must realize that even though we have these awkward feelings, there is nothing fundamentally special about them, and if we can find a way to live without them-its just as well. We really shouldn't care anymore about our morality than we care about our appendix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 8:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 10:54 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 10:58 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 26 of 102 (539140)
12-13-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
12-13-2009 9:24 AM


Re: Question Back At Ya
No, I don't think that, but that is because I am not one that thinks morality is just another genetic accident that is a remnant from some animals that proceeded us.
I accept that we all have humanity, empathy and morality, the disagreement stems from where it came from and what its real value is. To those who believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution, the value of morality should be no different logically than the value of hair.
Of course that isn't they way people view it, so my question to them is simply why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 9:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 10:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 33 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 11:08 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 29 of 102 (539143)
12-13-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Modulous
12-13-2009 10:15 AM


Should smashing a human to pieces be considered different to smashing a rock? Should according to whom? It is an empirical fact that they are viewed differently.
Yes, it is an empirical fact that they are viewed differently, even though logic should tell us they are the same. And to frogs and to aardvarks they are the same.
So do you believe that this genetic accident, presumably to a hyena, or to a capuchin or something, would have carried a significant survival advantage for the Morality Eve who was so fortunate to get this mutative mindbend amongst their immoral hyena or monkey brothers and sisters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 10:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 11:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 12:02 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 37 of 102 (539167)
12-13-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2009 12:25 PM


Why do you love your neighbors?
Oh, that's right, its just an accident of nature. Or because you have a better chance of survival if you love them. That doesn't exactly sound like a motive, but ok.
I wonder when we will discover which section of DNA contains this infamous "love" mutation. Do you personally feel the first mutant lover was a hyena or a jackal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 12:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 12:47 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 12:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 1:19 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 2:44 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 41 of 102 (539174)
12-13-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
12-13-2009 12:47 PM


Oh tsk tsk...are you still feeling bitter about being called out for your logical inadequacies in not even being able to understand what the lack of randomness implies. Its ok, you will get over it in time.
I feel the problem is your sides inability to make you just so stories believable. No, it doesn't take one mutation, but it has to start somewhere. Can you make up a fairy tale for how it started somewhere..since you side has such a passion for making up stories that have absolutely no empirical evidence to support them and then criticizing others for their lack of empirical evidence.
I mean heck, you only have about 5 hundred million different traits and characteristics to work with, you would think at least one of them you could prove beyond your Grims Fairy Tales.
Oh, it was kin selection..haha, yea, Nevermind that this one has already been proven wrong. Maybe it was eukaryote new age group therapy. ho ho ho

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 12:47 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 2:59 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 43 of 102 (539177)
12-13-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by hooah212002
12-13-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Question Back At Ya
No, I don't think that, but that is because I am not one that thinks morality is just another genetic accident that is a remnant from some animals that proceeded us.
Judging by this, and subsequent postings of yours, it seems as though you have fallen victim to believing what you assume an atheist is, rather than actually learning. You would do well to actually learn a thing or two about why people think differently than you do before you make numerous posts based on assumptions.
Was this post supposed to actually mean something in the sense of...well in any sense?
Which exactly was the assumption that I was supposed to learn about before I made numerous posts about it?
That morality is just another genetic accident that is a remnant from some animals that proceeded us. Oh, that's incorrect then?
hmm, you got me there...I sure thought that's what they were saying it is. Maybe you can clue me in then, since its not that, what is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 11:08 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024