EvC Forum: Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

quote:
How do you suggest that we all know it? Christianity teaches that Christ in His mercy has placed this within us.

Sorry, I didn't quite explain that like I intended. I meant that we are all aware that certain codes for behavior benefit the greater good. Therefore, I hold that pragmatism is the reason we have moral standards, until you demonstrate otherwise.

quote:
Any unbiased observer would contend that there is at least some evidence to support the claims Christianity makes. Would you not agree? Even if the evidence is not compelling to you, there is some. I would contend that the evidence for outweighs the evidence against, this is probably our point of disagreement.

There is the same type and volume of evidence for Islam, according to its believers. And so on and so forth. As one who was always taught that a literal belief in the Bible was the only kind that could stand, I can hardly even read it with a straight face, with the scientific and historical knowledge I now possess.

quote:
How so? What is the evidence against? Alleged lack of evidence for the flood( I don't grant this for other reasons, but even if I did...)? fine. I contend that the evidence of morality alone is enough reason to believe. Add in the laws of logic(I have labored this point alone), laws of thought, concepts of justice, love, beauty and any other esoteric concept. What else? There are many other evidences that provide further confirmations of this God.

These things can be explained many ways. You see God in them because you already believe God responsible for all good and reliable things. That's not learning from evidence. That's circular argument, claiming to derive belief from ideas based on pre-existing belief.

quote:
The theology behind Christianity is another. It is believable and it speaks to the core of the problem that has plagued mankind.

It's believable because it was forced to adapt. The early, malleable Christian church survived by adopting palatable doctrine that would be accepted by the people of that time. Doctrine has continued to change (though not as dramatically since the canon was "fixed") to keep "the church," in the generic sense, socially acceptable. What Christian theology is not, and never will be, is the truth as originally imparted to anyone, ever. It is historically impossible.

quote:
I commend you for your honesty but you must examine where these feelings come from and how can your worldview account for them? I contend that it can not. Atheism can not explain these metaphysical concepts, theism can. They clearly exist, as you are even demonstrating yet again. So when speaking of the metaphysical, if one system can explain the metaphysical in an extremely concise manner, and the other can not even begin to account for them, which is more likely an accurate representation of the system it is trying to describe?

All I need to explain is human emotion. Chemistry explains it quite satisfactorily. As for metaphysics, once again you assume a basis that need not be assumed. Metaphysics cannot be documented or shown to exist outside the firing of synapses in our brains, so I'm under no burden to explain it when I say that I can accept the apparent absence of a deity from my world.

quote:
In fact I listed some of the most profound, thoughtful, intelligent and rational scientists ever to have blessed this earth were Christians. Again it is irrelevant ultimately but it does provide evidence that all theists are not babbling fools as some might think. I wrote this on an earlier post in case you missed it:

I'm just fine with all of that. Let's just note that all their useful results were achieved through methodological naturalism, and we can leave it at that. Any responses there would be better off in the MN thread.

quote:
If that were so, these emotions you have among other things can not be explained except for them being electro chemical processes in your brain. It should be self-evident that these concepts are more than that.

Back to the emotions now.

To many people, your conclusion is not self-evident by any means. Intuition says otherwise, but intuition is known very well in science as a bald-faced liar that often serves the interests of human learning and achievement in an extremely poor manner.

Electrochemical impulses explain how we take actions based on our feelings, as well as their physical effects on our bodies. Any other aspects you feel are not explained?

quote:
BTW, the simple fact that my philisophical system is more appealing does not mean or even imply that it is NOT true.

Of course not. I only said it was unrelated and a terrible means of determining either way.

quote:
I contend that the requirements atheists place on theists are unreasonable. It should be likened to a judicial case, not proving a scientific theory. The burden of proof is on the theist, however a formal proof should not be the requirement for acceptance.

I myself ask theists for nothing. I had a really great talk just the other day with one of my best friends, a devout Catholic, about our faith and our life stories. Neither demanded anything. We just compared how faith has affected our lives and both found the experience enriching.

People only tend to demand proof when you demand they kneel. Outspoken proponents of atheism are rare, and are not out to win converts but rather to fight for things like religious freedom and sound education. Of course, it's a different story here. Some people just like to argue, and some (like me) are here to learn and only get involved when something interests or riles them. Just my two cents.

quote:
This again proves my point. How can you begin to verify this? This statement does not make sense in an atheist world. In an atheist world, they both would be equally altruistic if I granted every possible thing in your favor. Why do you even sense that if someone does something good for no personal gain, that it is better than if they do it for personal gain? This again, demonstrates my point.

I could possibly concede a little on this point: some theists are genuinely altruistic, but the issues get way more muddy when you incorporate the promise of reward and the threat of divine wrath. Thus I still feel that altruism as such (the doing of good for others without promise of benefit) is more clearly served (if not necessarily better served) by one who believes without a doubt that his/her actions will solely work to the advantage of others. I speak of altruism not as an absolute, ever-present moral thing, but rather as a category of action motivated by a type of thought process. One is in no way obliged to assume that anything else is involved. Moreover, people believing in altruism is not the same thing as altruism existing, or altruistic acts occurring. I don't see you being particularly careful to separate these concepts.

quote:
quote:
That (sorry to disillusion you) leaves the godless heathens holding the high ground over coerced believers.
Again, why is this so in your worldview? How can it even begin to give an account?

Because it is less selfless to give when you are 100% sure you won't be enthroned in paradise as a result. Pure altruism requires believing that what you do is all for the good of others. Seems obvious. I'm not saying atheists are more virtuous, as that's a totally subjective thing. I _am_ saying that it is possible to be a kind and caring person who benefits the human race without doing it for God, and that one popular concept (altruism) is best served and best represented by one who does it for no apparent reason.

quote:
This discussion provides further evidence that these truths exist within each of us.

Evidence of a particular thought pattern is not the same as evidence for anything in the real world beside the activity of nerve cells!

quote:
Did you know that the concepts you are speaking of are concepts Christ taught? I'm sure you also know that Christianity teaches that God has placed these concepts within you.

Christianity teaches that it's more selfless for an unbeliever to give than for a believer to give?

quote:
How can atheism account for your implied statement that being unselfish for no reason is better than being unselfish for gain? In either case, you are still acting out a good deed and society should benefit from the acts either one committed independent of the motives involved.

So we agree on some things.

quote:
This is another point theist philosophers have made. Atheists borrow from the theist world view even though the concepts borrowed do not make sense within the confines of atheism.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that the concept of doing good for others originated after the concept of an invisible, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

While it may be true that religious institutions have been vessels for the ideals of charity and good will and such,

1) they have often served completely different ideals, such as exploitation of the masses and temporal power for their masters, and;

2) this does not in any way prove that these concepts originated within a religious context or have been best served by organized religions.

quote:
While they do this, they deny the realities of the world in which we live. How can this be the high ground?

If anyone denies the realities of the world we live in, it is Biblical literalists dabbling in the realm of science. They deny physical reality constantly to maintain the sort of faith they desire. Worse, they force their twisted interpretations of evidence on other people, accuse them of sin and faithlessness, slander those who accomplish difficult and demanding scientific work, and generally countermand the moral imperatives they claim to hold.

I don't mean that I consider atheists morally superior to theists. I consider virtue to be independent of faith. Each has possible positive and negative effects on one's worldview, potential for good and for abuse, and I have seen each as a catalyst for negative or positive change, depending on the person and the situation. And yes, this equanimity comes naturally to me.

Wow. I had no idea I was going to write that much.

8 online now:	DrJones*, dwise1, LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 3/3