Atheism creates a moral vacuum which only a religion can fill.

385 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lmale's picture
A theory will never be

A theory will never be completely 100% proven instead they are considered true until proved otherwise.
Theories and hypotheses can be disproven and creationism has which is partly why its not a theory.
Science has extremely high standards for proof even observing an event is not proof, there is no proof the sun will shine tomorrow but probability says it will. We know the world is not flat but it has not been proven that its round (well almost round) thus the round earth theory IS STILL A THEORY even with astronauts in the spacestation showing us live footage of them laping the planet.
Saying just a theory only shows you have very limited understanding of what a scientific theory is or your lying, because your idea failed to be a theory you must convince others a theory is meaningless.

Valiya's picture
Yes, Lmale

Yes, Lmale
You Said: “A theory will never be completely 100% proven instead they are considered true until proved otherwise.”

That’s true not just of theories, but that’s how we engage in everything in life. You build a theory with available evidence. As long as you don’t get evidence contradicting it, then it stays valid, and we also act on it. Say a convict gets accused of murder. If all available evidence supports the charge against him, then he gets convicted and may also get executed. We don’t sit back and say, “well as nothing can be 100% proven in this world, we might as well give the benefit of that doubt to the criminal and let his scot free.” The world cannot function this way. Therefore, what can be established as the most probable event has to be considered as proof and acted upon.

It is basically this common sense logic about proofs we have to apply even in our discussions. To go to the extremes of philosophy and evince skepticism about everything and then to get knotted up in self-contradictions is not the way to go forward.

YOU SAID: “Theories and hypotheses can be disproven and creationism has which is partly why its not a theory.”

You are saying creationism has been disproven? Well, Nyalthotep certainly disagrees with you, because he says it too can neither be proven or disproven. And I would like to know on what grounds you are making that claim. What is your proof?

YOU SAID: “Saying just a theory only shows you have very limited understanding of what a scientific theory is or your lying, because your idea failed to be a theory you must convince others a theory is meaningless.”

If you can provide a proper definition of what a theory is, then probably I will try applying that to my idea and test if it is valid enough to be a theory. I will also apply that on evolution, and test it.

Valiya's picture
Yes, Lmale

Yes, Lmale
You Said: “A theory will never be completely 100% proven instead they are considered true until proved otherwise.”

That’s true not just of theories, but that’s how we engage in everything in life. You build a theory with available evidence. As long as you don’t get evidence contradicting it, then it stays valid, and we also act on it. Say a convict gets accused of murder. If all available evidence supports the charge against him, then he gets convicted and may also get executed. We don’t sit back and say, “well as nothing can be 100% proven in this world, we might as well give the benefit of that doubt to the criminal and let his scot free.” The world cannot function this way. Therefore, what can be established as the most probable event has to be considered as proof and acted upon.

It is basically this common sense logic about proofs we have to apply even in our discussions. To go to the extremes of philosophy and evince skepticism about everything and then to get knotted up in self-contradictions is not the way to go forward.

YOU SAID: “Theories and hypotheses can be disproven and creationism has which is partly why its not a theory.”

You are saying creationism has been disproven? Well, Nyalthotep certainly disagrees with you, because he says it too can neither be proven or disproven. And I would like to know on what grounds you are making that claim. What is your proof?

YOU SAID: “Saying just a theory only shows you have very limited understanding of what a scientific theory is or your lying, because your idea failed to be a theory you must convince others a theory is meaningless.”

If you can provide a proper definition of what a theory is, then probably I will try applying that to my idea and test if it is valid enough to be a theory. I will also apply that on evolution, and test it.

Lmale's picture
Interesting you should bring

Interesting you should bring up the law because the supreme court declared creationism NOT SCIENCE.
First the 1987 creationism trial.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
Secondly the 2005 intelligent design trial which proved the entire intelligent design crapola was simply a fraudulent attempt to get creationism into schools by rebranding.
This hoax has effectively shredded any credibility creationism had.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
For definition of scientific theory go to notjustatheory.com
I never said nothing can be proven 100% i said nothing can be scientifically proven 100% its not how science works.
Then theres the simple fact that creationism relies on a flood that never happened the fact that humans and dinosaurs did not co exist i could go on for days about all the holes in the creationism hypothesis but basically it has no evidence no observations cannot make predictions. The best creationism can do is say how so you know universal CONSTANTS were not different in the past or god made the universe 6000 years ago but made it look old (which would make god the biggest con artist ever pissing about with us for a laugh and sending people to hell for accepting the evidence of our senses) infact its rare a creationist publishes a paper because they know they cant back up their claims and proper scientists will point out the flaws, fact is unless half (or more) of science is wrong creationism is wrong, geology, geography, almost the entirety of biology, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, ecology, physics, electromagnetism, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, palaeontology, archeology, anthropology and more.
Now consider occams razor, is alllll that wrong or is the claim that has no evidence observations or predictions and whos leaders have been shown to commit fraud wrong?
Creationists also claim theres a 155 year old conspiracy for evolution, looking at all the sciences that evolution relies on do you really honestly believe that many scientists would go along with a conspiracy infact could go along with out it slipping without atleast a few coming 'clean' wiki leaks style, no that many scientists couldnt keep a conspiracy that massive hidden and for 155 years. Not to mention it would require many governments support. Why bother? Proving evolution would not disprove god (infact the pope has declared evolution true and god made it. He also said genesis was poetic licence and never meant to be taken literally, ofcourse just ignore the fact that christians spent over 1000 years killing anyone who dare to question genesis like christians ignore so many many many atrocities they committed) just prove that the anonymous man who wrote genesis was wrong. That would not be earth shattering news after all the bible contains many mistakes like the world is flat the sun orbits the earth (the greeks had proved otherwise but the bibles writers still put those mistakes in their books) leprosy can be cured with bird blood etc
My final poke at creationism here how many creationists are biologists? Answer not many thus they rely heavily on argument from authority listing scientists that believe in creationism but have no expertise in the required fields. You can see this in the ken ham v bill nye debate ken puts non biologists photos on screen explains their field and contributions then basically says these smart people believe me.
Links to more information:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_b...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_acce...

Valiya's picture
The link you gave me a link

The link you gave me a link had this:
“These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution.”

What it basically says is that a THEORY explains an observed fact. For example, we observe things falling to the ground. Gravity explains it, and that’s a theory. Fine, let me apply this on evolution.

What do we observe in the case of evolution? Your link (pasted above)seems to assume that we observe genetic change over generations. This is not true. What we observe is similarity between species .This is all that we can see. We don’t see genetic change over generations... we don’t see monkeys turning into humans. We only see there are similarities between monkeys and humans.

Next your links stated about theory: “It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.” (this bit of the link has not been pasted above for sake of brevity)

Let’s see how well substantiated evolution is:

For the last 150 years search for missing fossil links have been going on, and the gap is still embarrassingly too wide. Now, evolutionary scientists have given up on searching, and instead are inventing new explanations like PET. Instead of the theory explaining observed facts, what we are seeing is that it’s trying to explain why ‘Facts” are NOT observed.

We are yet to see a mutation that generates a new trait. Even the E Coli experiment, I have shown, only loses information instead of adding more. This after observing 50,000 generations of the bacteria, under controlled conditions, where selection is done by humans, instead of nature.

Is this what you mean by ‘well-substantiated.” To compare it with the example of gravity, this would be like insisting that there is a force called gravity, while we have not seen a single object falling to the ground yet.

Now, let’s apply it on creationism:

Creationism says that the complexity in nature is possible only through the agency of an intelligent will (by whatever name you call it). Firstly, it’s trying to explain an observed fact, which is complexity in nature, unlike evolution which is trying to explain an unobserved fact.

Now, how well-substantiated is it? With every new discovery in nature, the complexity in nature is shown to be of an extremely high order. Earlier, we thought a cell is a simple structure... but today we know it is much more complex than a modern, hi-tech factory. Complexity is a strong evidence of design... meaning intelligent purpose.

Therefore, if you compare between evolution and creationism – yes I agree both don’t reach the level of a scientific theory, but between the two, Creationism is stronger than Evolution.

The rest of your post was basically critiquing the Christian perspective of creationism. I don’t have to respond to that because that’s not what I espouse.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "Your link (pasted

Valiya - "Your link (pasted above)seems to assume that we observe genetic change over generations. This is not true."

You just discussed a genetic change in E coli over generations in this very thread. Of course you said it lost information (lol) but even that is a change! So when it suits you there are changes, and when it does not suit you there aren't changes. There seems to be no limits to your dishonesty.

Valiya's picture
Do you honestly believe that

Do you honestly believe that it’s loss of genetic information that is meant here as genetic change? It’s obvious the reference is to increase in genetic information - one species changing into another species. I was claiming that this is not an observable fact.

Lmale's picture
Jeasus thats fractally wrong

Jeasus thats fractally wrong roflmao where to begin.
First off google the scientific definition of observations.
Second saying god did it but we dont know how and dont have evidence and cant prove god exists and use made up words to confuse theists is hardly substantiated. Do you do meth? Seriously???
Missing links do you have any idea how many times the missing links been found and creationists just go what about the bit that links between it and this bit.
The process of fossilisation and the millions of years means we will most likely never find a complete fossil record however enough has been found and it all cooberates evolution not creationism and creationists cant explain any of it.
How about predictions theists love a good prediction, evolution has made many predictions and guess what they are right.
Complexity is just a creationist buzzword every thing the creationists claimed proved irreducible complexity has been explained thus disproved.
For example the eye creationists claimed both that its too perfect (wrong it evolved in water and relies on the eyelid and tear ducts why didnt god give us an eye designed for use in air) and irreducibly complex saying it could not have just poofed into being. We know exactly how it was evolved we even have living creatures with each stage of the evolution of the eye that we can examine and we have traced 3 separate independent evolutions of the eye.
Complexity does not have to be the result of a designer thats a case of having an answer you want and blindly twisting facts to get it.
True science starts with a question and does not care what the answer is creationism does not work that way it starts with an answer and rejects any facts that go against their answer. Ive seen a documentary where when asked what a creationist would do if his results contradicted creationism the rely was hed discard them. This is why they are considered jokes they are the ultimate hypocrites.
Notice you ignored the law stuff typical creationist ignore what you cannot twist and use creationist arguments as if they were your own. The problem with that is most creationist arguments have been refuted so your using arguments that have been shown to be wrong. I could have just got the site refuting them and linked it but unlike you i use my own brain.

Valiya's picture
Hi Lmale. Thanks for your

Hi Lmale. Thanks for your reply. Here is my response.

YOU SAID: Second saying god did it but we dont know how and dont have evidence and cant prove god exists and use made up words to confuse theists is hardly substantiated. Do you do meth? Seriously???

These are statements you are putting into my mouth. I never said any of this. I just said that complexity in nature is indicative of intelligent design.

YOU SAID: Missing links do you have any idea how many times the missing links been found and creationists just go what about the bit that links between it and this bit. The process of fossilisation and the millions of years means we will most likely never find a complete fossil record however enough has been found and it all cooberates evolution not creationism and creationists cant explain any of it.

Missing links is not an issue between theists and evolutionists. It’s a matter of hot debate between evolutionists themselves.They are not able to reconcile their differences over it. That’s why you have PET theory, which gradualists in evolution oppose. The gaps, even after 150 years and a million fossils, is still an embarrassment for evolutionists.

YOU SAID: How about predictions theists love a good prediction, evolution has made many predictions and guess what they are right.

Quote them and let’s analyze them.

YOU SAID: Complexity is just a creationist buzzword every thing the creationists claimed proved irreducible complexity has been explained thus disproved.

Look... the thing here is, we both agree there is complexity in nature. And we both agree that complexity demands an explanation. Evolution theory is an attempt at that. I can look at the engines of a car and a motorbike and argue that one evolved from the other, and I can also construct a story to show each part in the basic design could have existed independently before becoming part o the complex design and so on. These are at best stories. What you need are “Well-Substantiated” evidence. That’s what I am arguing is lacking in the theory. If I don’t need to substantiate my explanation, I can come up with any fantasy story I want.

YOU SAID about the eye: “We know exactly how it was evolved we even have living creatures with each stage of the evolution of the eye that we can examine and we have traced 3 separate independent evolutions of the eye.”

This is what I said is fantasy. As long as you can’t show that mutation adds genetic information, all these explanations are mere fairytales. I can construct better stories about automobile engines.

YOU SAID: “Complexity does not have to be the result of a designer thats a case of having an answer you want and blindly twisting facts to get it.”

I thank you for one thing. You said “complexity does not have to be...” by which you are implying that it need not necessarily be, but it can be. Therefore, you are keeping that door of designer open.

However, this is a highly insincere explanation, because you would never accept in your life complexity as emanating from randomness. If you found that someone had entered your email and used it to send some damaging information to your competitors... would you accept it if the hacker said, that his email address was almost similar to yours, but his password was exactly the same as yours, and so opened your email by accident, and sent some mails to his friends, who by chance happened to be your competitors, and the information he sent them was about some unrelated subject, yet coincidentally it matched the sensitive information on your system etc.

You rule out so much randomness, because of the complexity involved in it. Even if we see a particular car behind us taking all the turns that we did, we would suspect design... someone is following us. This is how we run our life. But somehow when it comes to the complexity in nature, which is way too complex than the example I quoted above, you easily offload it on chance. Strange!

YOU SAID: “True science starts with a question and does not care what the answer is creationism does not work that way it starts with an answer and rejects any facts that go against their answer. Ive seen a documentary where when asked what a creationist would do if his results contradicted creationism the rely was hed discard them. This is why they are considered jokes they are the ultimate hypocrites.”

I would request you not to quote these stories and anecdotes in a discussion of this nature. I can turn this same argument against you, quoting stories of an atheist who when asked “What would you do if you found that all of evolution’s so called evidences get disproved, and he said I would wait for new evidence to come sometime in future.” In fact, this is what evolutionists have been doing all along... they have been waiting for the missing links... and still waiting. It doesn’t seem very much like starting with a question... this is starting with a very strong presupposition.

And finally you said: “Notice you ignored the law stuff typical creationist ignore what you cannot twist and use creationist arguments as if they were your own. The problem with that is most creationist arguments have been refuted so your using arguments that have been shown to be wrong. I could have just got the site refuting them and linked it but unlike you i use my own brain.”

Look, you want me to accept a court’s verdict on this discussion. The same court that ruled in favour of George Bush during the vote counting scandal in the first election. Would you accept that decision? Do you accept every single verdict that comes out of every single court in the world? What are you talking?

I quoted the example of the court, just to show that it would be impossible for us to run our daily lives if we demand for science’s high standard of proof for everything. (Which is what Nyalthotep seemed to be suggesting. Things like “you can’t even prove you had cereals for breakfast.)

Lmale's picture
I had found many links and

I had found many links and wrote them but the damn page refreshed while getting my final link and im not going through that effort again for someone who probably wont click a link let alone read whats there ill post the last one and you can google the rest if you give a crap.
Google 'how the eye evolved'
Google 'irreducible complexity refuted'
Google 'missing links found' ill include one of them as it explains where the term came from.
Basically all your creationist arguments have been refuted so simply google key words from your arguments and add debunked or refuted.
http://observationdeck.io9.com/evolution-101-the-missing-link-faq-152846...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Predictions

Valiya's picture
I will read them up. Thanks

I will read them up. Thanks Lmale. But i would prefer that u write about them. Its so hard to write refutations to long winded articles u know.

Valiya's picture
Nyarlathotep

Nyarlathotep

Just keeping my word... a reply to your E coli example.

I checked out the E Coli link you sent. And I also read up more on it, and it was easy to see that this is hardly any proof for evolution. My initial hunch that it would be similar to the nonnatural sugar processing enzyme in bacteria experiment. What we see here is a loss of information, no addition of information.

Here is the explanation.
First of all, you didn’t mention that E-Coli bacteria already have the capacity to process citrus. This happens in anaerobic environment. But this capacity is switched off in environments where they have access to oxygen.

SO, we are not talking about any new trait here.

Then what happens in the mutants? The E coli cell wall contains transponder that act as gatekeepers on the cell wall controlling what comes into the cell. These transponders, before mutation, are highly picky in choosing what should be allowed in. They are programmed to let in only glucose, and that’s the reason under aerobic conditions, these bacteria can’t process citrus.

Under controlled conditions in the lab, the E Coli are starved of glucose and exposed only to citrus. Many generations later, the E Coli suddenly gain the ability to process citrus, and are able to survive.

This might look like a new trait, but what’s actually happening is that a mutation causes the transponder enzyme to lose their specificity (choosing only glucose) and let in everything. As citrus is available in the controlled environment, they let this in, and as the cell already has the ability to process citrus, they process it and survive.

Now, why do I call this loss of information? What enabled the E coli to survive on citrus is the mutation in transponder gene, which loses its specificity in choosing what should enter the cell and becomes lax.

Now, imagine a watchman of an elite club who has been given specific information on who is to be allowed into the club. He is supposed to allow only those who come in a specific car, wearing a specific colored suite etc. These details are the information which the watchman has to use to do his filtering. Now, say the club falls to bad times, and there’s nobody coming. And so, the watchman is now asked to let everybody in.

Therefore, the club survives its hard times, as it now opens membership to all the riffraff. This can be interpreted as an evolution. But what has actually happened is that the watchman lost information on who is to be allowed in, and so he relaxes the rules. Specificity is lost.

This is exactly what happens in the case of E Coli. It’s a loss of information that helped the bacteria process citrus. Leave, such a mutant bacteria out in the wild and it will perish in no time, because it will let in even harmful substrates that will destroy it.

No. This is not an example of mutation providing additional information.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Here we have a beautiful

Here we have a beautiful example of doublethink: the conclusion that adding 6000 bits of information is "losing information".

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed..."(Orwell)

Valiya's picture
I had very strongly critiqued

I had very strongly critiqued the E Coli experiment in a very detailed manner. You had nothing, not a word, to say about any of that. Isn’t it a fact that E Coli is already programmed to process citrus (under anaerobic conditions), and therefore not a new trait? Isn’t it a fact that transponders lose specificity after mutation? Aren’t these strong cases for my argument?

Yet you choose not to touch on any of these points, and you still hang on to the 6000 bits case. If you copy 6000 letters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and paste it at the end of the play, does it add any qualitative information to the play?

Remember the computer information bits example. What’s the use if you can show me that a particular software has been enhanced with 6000 bits of information, when the user doesn’t see any new feature added to it?

Yes, 6000 bits can create new information, but in the case of E Coli it hasn’t shown to add any information at all. While on the other hand, the mutation in the transponder gene has led to some serious loss of information, which turned out to be beneficial.

Therefore, it’s not two contradictory ideas that I am holding. Instead of quoting Orwell, it would be more useful if you can refute my arguments in an objective manner.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya- "does it add any

Valiya- "does it add any qualitative information to the play"

Notice when your version of information is no longer viable, you retreat to a new version (this time 'qualitative information'. Yet another undefined quantity, and again another tautology!
---
Valiya- "Isn’t it a fact that E Coli is already programmed to process citrus (under anaerobic conditions), and therefore not a new trait?"

So a strain of E coli went from not being able to use citric acid in oxygen environments, to being able to use it in oxygen environments, and you say it isn't a new trait. You've established when you say complexity you don't mean complexity. You've establish when you say information you don't mean information. And now its clear when you said traits you don't mean traits.
---
Valiya - "What’s the use if you can show me that a particular software has been enhanced with 6000 bits of information, when the user doesn’t see any new feature added to it?"

LOL. You can easily add features to software with 6000 bits! Oh silly me, I should have realized when you said features you didn't mean features.

Valiya's picture
Nyarlathotep

Nyarlathotep
So you are basically saying that the duplication of 6000 nucleotides in E Coli have to be taken as new information, and hence as proof for evolution.

Let’s get our basics straight once again.

We are having this discussion to see if mutation is a viable explanation for evolution. That’s when I asked if there is any example in nature of a mutation that leads to increase in genetic information.

And you came up with the example of E Coli experiment to show that a mutation which increases the number of nucleotides is an example of increased information.

Okay, I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that if nucleotides have the capacity to encrypt information, and there are more nucleotides, then it should essentially be taken as increased information.

I understand that logic. But why do I refuse to take this increase in information as proof for evolution?

Because we know very well that even in harmful mutations - ones that destroy the organism - there is an increase in information of this nature. It’s very common. You don’t have to go too far for an example.

The duplication of oncogenes in humans is an important cause of many types of cancers. When there is duplication, it obviously means increase in content, and as you know genes are made of nucleotide base pairs, and hence what we are seeing is an increase in nucleotides (information).

But just because there is an increase in information due to duplication, will you take it as an example of evolution? Obviously not. Because oncogenes cause cancer that destroy us. There are many more examples of gene duplication that are harmful to the organism.

It is the same logic when I say the E Coli’s duplication of 6000 nucleotides can NOT be accepted as an example for evolution.

If you read the link you sent me for the E Coli experiment, you will find that the duplication of nucleotide base pairs involved the gene of the citrate transporter.

I explained to you what is happening to the citrate transporter. The transporter loses its efficiency after the mutation as it exerts less control on what enters the cell. Therefore, it is essentially a mutation that is defective.

Therefore, if you ask me if there is an increase in nucleotide numbers after the mutation, I would say yes. Do you want to consider this as increase in information? I don’t have a problem with that. But has that increased the efficiency of the gene... NO. It only decreased it. Therefore, it’s not a good example for evolution.

If you are claiming that the ability to process citrus in aerobic conditions should be seen as an increase in efficiency... sorry. All that happened was this: the bacteria already had the ability to process citrus. The door that controlled the entry of citrus into the cell broke. And therefore, citrus freely flowed in, and the already existing ability of the cell comes into play.

All that the mutation actually did was wreck the door. Loss of information.

Now, why does this seem as a beneficial mutation? Because, under the controlled conditions of the lab, the bacteria is exposed only to citrus. Put it in rat poison, then the cell’s wrecked door would let that in too, and the rat poison will kill it immediately.

I frankly don’t know how much more simply I can explain it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A) Valiya- “But just because

A) Valiya- “But just because there is an increase in information due to duplication...and hence what we are seeing is an increase in nucleotides (information)”

Earlier you told us that:

B) Valiya-“So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.”

So were you lying to us when you said A or B?

Valiya's picture
What do you think I could

What do you think I could have possible meant when i said "a single nucleotide" in B statement. That was part of a very long post in which I was trying to establish that a mutation can never give rise to a new trait. Therefore, that was a superlative statement, which should only be taken in that sense. If I am critiquing an author's style of writing, and I said something like "His books are not worth a penny," you shouldn't take it literally and bring evidence that his books are in fact priced higher than a penny.

If you undersand that, then there is no contradiction between A and B. After all that I said about E Coli experiment, is this the only problem you have with my argument? Can I assume that you agree with the rest of my argument, which is that E Coli experiment is not an example for evolution?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - Can I assume that

Valiya - Can I assume that you agree with the rest of my argument, which is that E Coli experiment is not an example for evolution?

No. It is an excellent example of evolution, even by the standards you gave:. Information was increased by approximately 6000 bits (you said this was impossible), complexity was increased by a small amount (you said this was impossible), a new trait appeared (the ability to process citric acid in oxygen environment, you said was impossible),

Of course, in your previous post you introduced yet another ill defined hurdle "efficiency of the gene", of course the theory of evolution does not seem to depend on "efficiency of the gene" (whatever the hell that means).

Valiya's picture
Ok...fine. You are entitled

Ok...fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I have made my case, and so you did. But I must say and in all earnestness that I really enjoyed this discussion. I learnt a lot definitely. If you are interested may be we can discuss another topic. Or may be we can state our opinions on the original subject of this thread....morality.

No hard feelings. Apologies if i had unintentionally caused u hurt. Take care.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Let me take a different

Let me take a different approach. It is clear from you opening that you believe in moral absolutism, so I am going to demolish that first.

Morals do not apply universally:

If a rock fell and killed a person, or a lion eats a gazelle, usually no one exhibits moral outrage. Why? Because morality is DEPENDENT on and only APPLICABLE to a sentient being capable of understanding such an abstract construct. That is why, even in law, we only truly punish people who can understand that they did "wrong". That means, outside an agent capable of the concept, there isn't any morality.

Morals are contextual:

Morals are not absolute, it is not always wrong to kill, sometimes killing IS the moral thing to do. Morals depend on intent and consequence of an action or behavior, when divorced from the specific situation, they lose all power. There is no list of actions that we should never, ever, do. There is only a paradigm where we navigate situations trying to do the best we can, and everybody has made mistakes, but we must press on regardless. We must assess any situation, decide what action will provide the best consequences, and sometimes we are wrong. However, a great deal of the time, we are also right.

Foundations of morality:

Ask yourself what kind of society best promotes your survival, and the survival of anyone you may care about in the future, regardless of who they may be. We do not simply act on our own best self-interest, but in the interest of our family, society, and species. This is instinctual, it takes no great philosophical consideration, even the least of us do so in our daily lives. Altruism is also instinctual, helping and being useful to others gives us a sense of purpose and euphoria, it is a better religion than religion.

Valiya's picture
Hi Travis, nice to hear from

Hi Travis, nice to hear from you again. I thought you had abandoned this discussion.

Now, let me examine each of your points.

You said: “If a rock fell and killed a person, or a lion eats a gazelle, usually no one exhibits moral outrage. Why? Because morality is DEPENDENT on and only APPLICABLE to a sentient being capable of understanding such an abstract construct. That is why, even in law, we only truly punish people who can understand that they did "wrong". That means, outside an agent capable of the concept, there isn't any morality.”

First of all, you have to be able to make the distinction between a general ruling and the specifics. For example, “Fire burns.” This is a general statement. “Fire does not burn when you wear protective gears.” This is the specific. The two are not contradictory statements. You should not consider that someone who makes these two statements is contradicting himself.

Now, when you say that a person who gets killed by a falling stone doesn’t cause moral outrage, you seem to imply that it’s something subjective, because it goes against the principle of “killing being immoral.” But one is general, and the other is specific.

I would consider that morality is not absolute only if the same situation (with all the specifics) generates two different reactions. If a stone falls and kills someone, and some people get morally outraged, and some don’t, then that’s a sign of relative morality, not absolute.

When I say that my morality is absolute, what I mean is that based on my book, I will judge any given situation the same way irrespective of time, place, culture etc.

YOU SAID: “Morals are not absolute, it is not always wrong to kill, sometimes killing IS the moral thing to do. Morals depend on intent and consequence of an action or behavior, when divorced from the specific situation, they lose all power.”

This is what I explained above. Killing becomes moral when specifics are added to it. For example, I say, it is morally correct to kill a man who has committed a murder. When these specifics are added, then no matter in which era you are living, or in which place you are living or whatever, this position will not change. That’s what I mean by absolute.

You SAID: “There is no list of actions that we should never, ever, do.”

Here is a list I can make. “Never kill a human being. Never rape a woman. Never cheat another person.” These are of course absolutes. But then if you bring in specifics like, “What about cheating a person in order to get the money he had fraudulently taken from you,” well in that case cheating is allowed. However, this should not be seen as a change in the first ruling. Because the two rulings are not talking about the same action. One is talking about cheating an innocent man, the second is talking about cheating a man who cheated you.”

YOU SAID: “There is only a paradigm where we navigate situations trying to do the best we can, and everybody has made mistakes, but we must press on regardless. We must assess any situation, decide what action will provide the best consequences, and sometimes we are wrong. However, a great deal of the time, we are also right.

You said paradigm. That’s the moot question of this entire thread. On what basis do you decide good and bad? Morality becomes relative (not absolute) if you go by assessing situations using your current knowledge. It is when you do this that the same situation with the same specifics becomes right at some times, and wrong at some times. Say two men are falling into a homosexual relationship. Using your current knowledge, you say that there is nothing immoral in what they are doing. And few years later studies reveal that homosexuality causes a big harm to individuals and society. And then you would say, “homosexuality is immoral.” Here the situation and specifics as far as the homosexual couple is concerned has not changed at all. They are still doing what they were always doing. Yet, you were forced to pass two different types of judgments, because of your changing knowledge. This is what I mean by relativistic morality. It changes with time.

You SAID: “Ask yourself what kind of society best promotes your survival, and the survival of anyone you may care about in the future, regardless of who they may be.”

Fine, ask yourself that question. Is it a society in which homosexuality is permissible or in which homosexuality is prohibited? Is it a society in which alcoholism is permitted or one in which it is prohibited? Is it a society in which the economy is based on fiat money and interest, or one in which currency backed by real asset and interest-free. Is it a society in which prostitution is legal or illegal? Use your standard of logic to arrive at these conclusions and trust me you will end up confused, with moral value changing every 10 years, or from place to place.

YOU SAID: “We do not simply act on our own best self-interest, but in the interest of our family, society, and species. This is instinctual, it takes no great philosophical consideration, even the least of us do so in our daily lives. Altruism is also instinctual, helping and being useful to others gives us a sense of purpose and euphoria, it is a better religion than religion.”

Just take away the punitive measures for tax evasion, and how many people do you think would pay their taxes? What do you think created the major economic crises that rocked the whole world in the last few years? It was human greed. Greed is the norm, altruism is the exception.

If I were to think materialistically, it doesn’t serve any purpose to help some unknown bum on the street. What’s the euphoria in it? In a world of tough competition, where I have just got one life to live (no hereafter where I will be judged for my deeds), why should I care for anybody else? If I can earn an extra dime by telling a lie or cheating, why shouldn’t I make that extra buck and live life happily until I die? This is why a godless world would be a dangerous world. That’s why you find believers engaging in humanity works on such a large scale. They find a purpose in it.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Um, thanks but I am a

Um, thanks but I am a different Travis.I just jumped into this conversation, so I am not sure how much has already been covered in the nine pages I skimmed through.

1. Morality is situational, all of ethics is, an absolute morality isn't. The fact that you can't or don't judge actions divorced from their intention and consequences, or the moral ability of the agent, all of it proves that morality can't be absolute. Your book has been interpreted many different ways through the ages, you might have been burning witches 400 years ago, so Christian morality has evolved in lock-step with the social morality you try so very hard to deny. I'm sorry, it doesn't appear that a Christian morality is either more absolute, or less prone to change, than one based on the society that they inhabit.

2. Those specifics itself are what are in question, adding specifics is EXACTLY what you find fault with when we do it. By now it should be fairly obvious that it isn't independent on the time or culture you happen to live in either, for not that long ago, people where using Christian morality to enforce racial segregation. Given all this, we have absolutely no basis for calling your moral system absolute, or even objective, it is at least as relative as the social morality that informs it. Religion adapts, and so does its morals.

3. In such a case I still wouldn't consider homosexuality any more immoral than smoking or drinking. The basis of our current morality is a form of social contractarianism, you many not think that you are also holding a morality based on social progression, but Christian history disagrees with you.

4. A lot of this is actually pretty easy, we just have to assess the value of individual rights against the rights of the group. Homosexuality is a rights issue, alcohol is fine as long as you are responsible for everything you do while on it, and prostitution isn't really any different than being an adult film actor(ess). Fiat money isn't a moral issue, it is an economic one, and a system we moved to out of necessity.

5. If we made taxes a choice, a lot of people would opt out of paying them, of course. You can call that greed, if you wish to, but most of it is just wanting to provide more for our families. That is the driving force of capitalism in the first place, the drive to provide as much as you can to those you care for. I don't think it would diminish the amount or number of donations charitable organizations would receive, for we do give altruistically. I would still help out homeless people, for purpose is more of a religious priority than a secular one, and we still feel good doing it. And, yes, it is a psychological phenomena:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compass-pleasure/201108/is-your-...

So, why act in accordance with your moral identity if your going to die? Because it is your moral identity. I don't know about you, but I do the right thing because I want to, not for either the carrot or the stick. Actually, studies have conclusively proven that people without a belief in either the carrot or the stick your religion provides are more moral, and less likely to the things you seem to fear. As far as believer being more involved, 75% of all "charitable donations" they use to inflate their numbers are to their church, and hardly a third of that ever sees the outside of the church coffers. So, no, every indicator we have shows that believers are neither more moral or charitable than nonbelievers. Sorry, but not only is the foundations of religious morality not born out in reality, but they don't even make sense logically.

Valiya's picture
Sorry. I thought you were the

Sorry. I thought you were the Travis who was posting some very interesting points earlier. We were having a good chat. Your points are interesting too. Here is my response.

1. Morality is situational, … more absolute, or less prone to change, than one based on the society that they inhabit.

First of all I subscribe to the Quranic morality, not Christian. But, yes, from your perspective that wouldn’t make much of a difference.

What do I mean by morality being absolute? Say, that I say that terrorism is wrong. And someone else comes along and says, no it is right. Now there are two differing views on the subject. But this doesn’t make it relative. After all, you can’t expect everybody to agree on everything, including scientifically established facts. Something becomes relative only when I, within my mind, entertain two contradictory ideas at the same time. If I think that killing a fetus is right from the perspective of a mother who is focused on her career, and wrong from the perspective of the infant, who has been killed for no fault of it, then that would be an internal contradiction, which then becomes relative morality.

You said about the different interpretations of scripture. Yes, that’s true of Quran also. But if I can, in my mind be sure of which interpretation is right, then my morality is absolute.

2. Those specifics itself are what are in question, adding specifics is EXACTLY … absolutely no basis for calling your moral system absolute, or even objective, it is at least as relative as the social morality that informs it. Religion adapts, and so does its morals.”

Once again, here you have critiqued the changing nature of Christian morality, and I agree with you one hundred percent. But Islamic morality hasn’t changed. If you claim otherwise, if you can bring me the proof, I will have a look at it and respond.

3. In such a case I still wouldn't consider homosexuality any more immoral than smoking or drinking. The basis of our current morality is a form of social contractarianiss…”

Social contract, exactly. That’s what I am saying. Are all social contracts in the past acceptable to you? Even the American constitution condoned slavery to a large extent. That was the social contract of those times. This keeps changing. And what you now consider as acceptable according to your social contract will change tomorrow.

4. A lot of this is actually pretty … money isn't a moral issue, it is an economic one, and a system we moved to out of necessity.

It’s easy because that’s what the world has finally arrived at after a long tortuous journey through moral landscapes in which religions, culture, science and so on, all played a part. All your current morals didn’t just come about just like that. And the journey continues. And further down, just as you criticize many of the ills of the past, your future generation will criticize you for your ills. Where will this end?

I had earlier posted on this thread on the issue of individual rights and common good. You say alcohol is fine as long as you are responsible for everything you do? But when looked at from a macro level, alcohol consumption costs the US a huge amount running into several billions by way of premature deaths, medical costs, loss of productivity and so on. On what basis do you take a call on this? Everyone agrees that alcohol does more harm than good to the society. When one person drinks, it may not be cause much harm. But when a society drinks it has big impacts – leading to orphans and losses to economy that generates poverty, and broken families etc – all of which are social ills. Then how do you balance between individual rights and group rights?

I just took up the topic of alcohol. There are similar problems with each of the issues discussed above. My question is simple: on what basis do you decide your good and bad? Is it social contract? In that case social contracts in the past have shown to be wrong in many cases. Is it by finding a balance between individual rights and group rights? In that case there are problems with alcohol as I stated above.

5. If we made taxes a choice, a lot of people would opt out of paying them, of course. You can call that greed… than a secular one, and we still feel good doing it. And, yes, it is a psychological phenomena:

People won’t pay taxes to take care of their families, you say. And just as they don’t mind cheating the government for the sake of their family, they wouldn’t mind cheating other individuals that are not related to them for the sake of the family. In fact, I don’t understand why you are confused over this? You rightly said, greed drives human endeavors. And why should that greed stop if you can add to your wealth by cheating, lying, and if need be killing. In fact isn’t that what we are seeing in this world? Aren’t our politicians lying to us constantly to keep power? Aren’t businesses lying to make more profits? If there is any semblance of order, it’s because there is law that is enforced (BY FORCE) on us. Left to our own devices or intrinsic good, the world will perish in no time. Why go that far to psychology… just look at your own self? What happens to an office when the boss doesn’t show up?

You said: “So, why act in accordance with your moral identity if your going to die? Because it is your moral identity… sorry, but not only is the foundations of religious morality not born out in reality, but they don't even make sense logically.”

Now, you are giving some figures of studies and all that… I can quote many studies to the contrary as well. One done by American Sociological Review stated that Muslims indulge in adultery the least. One research done by Huffington Post in the UK said that Muslims give the most charity.

Let me ask you one question: if I don’t have to fear that I am accountable to anyone after I die, and I have to power to do anything I want when I live on Earth, why shouldn’t I steal, kill, rape etc and enjoy my life to the max? Give me one reason why I should live an honest life and lead a life of scarcity?

Travis Hedglin's picture
1. Sorry for the confusion,

1. Sorry for the confusion, but the point still stands, situational morality CANNOT be absolute in any sense of the word. You are only as certain of your interpretation as the next person, even if you hold opposing views, there is no litmus test for holy scripture.

2. Sorry for the confusion, I deal mostly with Christians. That said, I really don't see Islam offering more or better guidelines for morality, nor has it existed unchanged for the last 1400+(?) years. Death to apostates? I suppose some Muslims still hold to that principle, but I would hope not too many, regardless of what the Imams might say. I know for a fact that many Muslims don't. Nor do they accept throwing acid on a rape victim. So, yeah, I would say that morality is changing in Islam too; even if it is far more slowly than older western monotheisms. I would also hope it isn't still acceptable to marry a 9 year-old, even if you waited a year before you boinked her, because that is ludicrous.

3. Obviously not, our contract evolves with our understanding, and that ability demonstrates its superiority to divine command. It can cover actions and situations completely unknown to or imagined by our primitive ancestors. Our moral understanding keeps getting better, and we are achieving a truly tolerant and peaceful society, because we HAVE abandoned commands from fictitious deities that knew morality no better than the uneducated peasants they represented.

4. Indeed, we arrived at the current morality through a long an arduous journey of our own failings and corrections, not gods. Most gods find slavery quite acceptable, and even command or condone it. You can call it moral discovery if you like, the more we learn and grow in education and understanding, the better a morality we can have. The less you can change, the more stagnant and backward morality becomes. This is a lesson we can actually learn from Islam and the middle east. As to alcohol, it may eventually become illegal again, but at the moment it is still considered to be acceptable. You may find this strange, but it is just part of how we arrive at morality in the first place, and religious morality has preformed worse in every aspect than a social contract, we should at least be honest about that.

5. You would consider the desire to provide for loved ones greed? In that case the gods themselves would exemplify greed, would they not? As far a "cheating" others is concerned, when you get a job you could consider that "cheating" someone else out of one, competition is a part of survival. No matter what you do, if you gain anything tangible someone else is losing it, we just try to minimize the impact of that loss by providing value for it. Now we are mainly talking about that value and how we determine it, which religion has little impact on.

6. Why shouldn't you steal, kill, rape, etc? Because you would be held accountable to your fellow man, and possibly be imprisoned or killed for it. Even if there is no eternal punishment for finite crimes, there is finite punishments for them, and no one is immune to that. So, go ahead, but you will be punished here and now for what you do. Regardless of what may or may not happen when you die, benefits and consequences exist in the world we live in, and function as a better system than your eternal ones. Remove the Earthly laws, and just watch what the believers do, I doubt the divine justice system will curb their behavior as much as our man-made ones do. So, yeah, religion is to morality what theology is to physics.

Valiya's picture
Hi Travis,

Hi Travis,
Many of the things you have raised here have already been answered in earlier posts… as you know this thread is getting tediously long.

Therefore, let me sum up my stance for you, before we proceed, so that we don’t have to repeat the same arguments presented before.

What I am trying to prove through this topic is NOT the correctness of wrongness of any moral ruling. For example, I am not trying to prove is homosexuality is right or wrong. What I am establishing here is that ‘an atheists morality is relativistic’ and hence weak. The morality of a believer is absolute, and hence strong. Now, let me clarify certain basics.

1. What do I mean by absolute morality? What I mean by absolute morality is the idea that I don’t hold two contradictory moral ideas in my mind. There may be others who disagree with me or my interpretations or my understanding of the subject. But as long as I can stick to my morality with conviction, then my morality is absolute. Therefore, if my scripture tells me that homosexuality is a sin, then no matter what the world tells me, I will consider it a sin. This position will never change.

2. Why do I say atheists’ morality is not absolute? An atheist bases his moral ideas upon his understanding of the world. However, he is well aware that his understanding is bound to change with growing knowledge. Therefore, when he takes a position on a moral issue, he has to do so by conceding that there is a chance of this understanding to change in future. This is what I mean when I say ‘holding two contradictory positions at the same time.’ It is right, but it could be wrong. This is relativistic.

3. Why is relativistic morality weak? Morality is not about doing good things merely. For example, eating healthy food is good. But when a person eats healthy food, we don’t say he is engaging in a moral act. Morality is about compromising your benefits for the good of others. When you share your food with a poor man, then you are doing a moral deed. Now, imagine you are on the brink of losing your job. If you tell a lie, you can keep your job. In this situation, if your moral precept is based on relativism (knowing that ideas of right and wrong could change in future) then you will find it easier to abandon the principle for the sake of immediate gains. The more desperate you are, the easier you will throw out your moral principle.

Having said that let me quickly respond to some of your points:
About changing interpretation of religion: This is why I said, when people differ, it doesn’t mean something is relative. It becomes relative when you hold (within yourself) two different opinions at the same time.

About social contract: I see it like this. Man has always, and continues to, exploit the weak. Social contracts have always been engineered to facilitate this. When man was living in small societies, the strong in that society was exploiting the weak in it. And you had social contracts that endorsed racism, slavery, casteism and so forth. And as the world become more globalized, the exploitation moved to states. Then you had colonialism where strong nations exploited weaker ones. And today, we are seeing imperialism and corporate world order, where exploitation is at its worst. Now, in each of these stages, man used whatever was at his disposal to justify his actions. Religion, communism, trade, civilizing the savages, eugenics and so on… were all justifications. Here is where, the question of what is morality becomes all the more pertinent. If you were living in medieval America, you would have traded slaves with NO compunction. If you were part of a cannibal tribe in Africa, you would be eating humans as coolly as you are eating animals now. That’s because you go by social contracts and limited human understanding of things. Whereas, if I were in any of these places, and my position would be the same as what it is today.

About morality of God: you are critiquing religions’ tolerance of slavery. I had made it very clear that my discussion is not about the correctness or wrongness of any ruling. Because, if haven’t even decided the basis on which to measure morality, then how can we judge any of moral ruling. Moreover, islam’s position on slavery is a subject of a separate discussion. If interested, we can start a new threat, and discuss it.

About cheating others: In this point, you just spelled out what I have been trying to prove. Look how, you equate getting a job to cheating someone else. That’s how things become relative in your understanding. Therefore, if getting a job is okay, then why should stealing someone’s wallet be wrong… it’s not very far from the first analogy.

Your answer to why you shouldn’t steak, rape etc. In this reply, you are saying that you won’t steal because of the consequences of this world, such as imprisonment. But we know that so many people in the world, especially the powerful elite, are far above the law. That’s why we see them doing the cruel things they are doing. They don’t have any law to fear. What we see in this world is that the honest and nice guy is suffering, while the bad guys are living off a good life. So, your reply doesn’t answer the question. George Bush did all that he did, started wars on lies, and gave all the spoils of those wars to his cronies and has got the blood of innocent millions on his hands. Do you think he will ever have to fear any law? Why shouldn’t he do all that, if he can today relax in his ranch enjoying life to the full.

Travis Hedglin's picture
...and this is where we

...and this is where we really differ. You are talking about concepts as if they are actual things. They aren't. You are not worried about how these things are implemented, only how they are perceived. A foundation or basis for morality is only important insofar as it actually affects peoples behavior, and not only have you NOT been able to demonstrate that theistic morality is superior in that regard, you are also redefining "absolute" to suit your own ends. Morality is RELATIVE to the situations and moral ability of the agent, that makes it relative, regardless whatever else you may think or believe about it. The argument isn't that things used to moral, but aren't anymore, it is that our moral ability has grown. Through history people have committed immoral actions, most of the time not knowing that they were immoral(a lot of times because of religion), because they do not have the moral ability we do today. As far as you trying to twist my analogy into permission to rob someone, I will suppose people will read my original comment, and not fall for your slippery-slope fallacy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've met lots of people who

I've met lots of people who say that morality is absolute/objective. However I've never actually met anyone who does not act as if morality is subjective/relative. For example which of the following are moral absolutes?

1) Stealing is wrong?
2) Murder is wrong?
3) Lying is wrong?
4) Abortion is wrong?
5) Drinking alcohol is wrong?
6) Doing drugs is wrong?
7) Being gay is wrong?
8) Blasphemy is wrong?
9) Sex outside of marriage is wrong?
10) Cannibalism is wrong?

Valiya's picture
Yes... I consider all of

Yes... I consider all of these moral absolutes. What's the point you are trying to make?

Nyarlathotep's picture
"Moral absolutism is an

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

If you believe that in some situations it is moral OK to do the things on that list, you just sank your moral absolutism. Let's consider one of the times on the list: "Doing drugs is wrong?".

If taking an aspirin (which is a drug) for a headache is not morally wrong, say goodbye to your moral absolute. Remember for it to be a moral absolute it must ALWAYS be wrong, in every situation, no matter how far fetched. However if you feel that taking an aspirin is morally wrong, then then let the shaming begin.

The lesson is, while some people pay lip service to moral absolutes, in practice they always weigh the nature of each situation, which is not moral absolutism.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.