Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Qur’an and Bible.
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 331 of 375 (761184)
06-29-2015 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Greatest I am
06-29-2015 12:12 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
Not my say so but the say so of their more left leaning peers.
But you're agreeing with those left-leaning peers, aren't you? You're the one who started the topic, not those left-leaning peers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 12:12 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 1:15 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 332 of 375 (761190)
06-29-2015 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by ringo
06-29-2015 12:25 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
I do not agree with those on the left but see them as a better alternative than the right wing fundamentals.
Both Christianity and Islam are homophobic and misogynistic religions that have outlived their usefulness and are now just a burden for secular societies that are trying to progress.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 12:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 1:21 PM Greatest I am has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 333 of 375 (761191)
06-29-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Greatest I am
06-29-2015 1:15 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
I do not agree with those on the left but see them as a better alternative than the right wing fundamentals.
You don't get to choose the "better alternative". Your OP asks, "Should we urge our governments to force changes to the violent misogynistic Qur’an and Bible to make those documents more civilized?" The question is stupid because our governments don't have the ability to "force" anything on either Christians or Muslims.
Edited by ringo, : Added word 'anything".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 1:15 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 1:31 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 334 of 375 (761193)
06-29-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
06-29-2015 1:21 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
So you think we live in religion run states instead of government run states. I do not.
Governments have made laws against the more stupid religions and can and should continue to do so, --- including asking or telling them to clean up their act and to stop producing people that must be killed by secular systems to redress their poor and damaging religious indoctrination.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 1:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 1:34 PM Greatest I am has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 335 of 375 (761196)
06-29-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Greatest I am
06-29-2015 1:31 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:
So you think we live in religion run states instead of government run states. I do not.
No, I think we live in states where the government doesn't/can't legislate religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 1:31 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 1:35 PM ringo has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 336 of 375 (761197)
06-29-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by ringo
06-29-2015 1:34 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Hogwash.
Hint. Taxing power.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 06-29-2015 1:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 06-30-2015 11:36 AM Greatest I am has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 337 of 375 (761202)
06-29-2015 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Tangle
06-29-2015 4:04 AM


Tangle writes:
You keep using this argument from incredulity as if you've never heard all the supporting evidence for it. You say it even though you accept evolution. You accept that these same 'mindless molecules' as your repeatedly say as though it has some negative weight, have created all the life forms on earth. But for some reason you can't accept that the same process can create the means by which groups of organisms can co-operate. Why is that?
The problem is that you keep confusing process with cause or agency. I'm ok with being called a theistic evolutionist but that overstates my knowledge of evolution or biology. I simply accept evolution based on what the majority of people that do have specific knowledge on those subjects believe.
However, those experts are no more knowledgeable than you or me when it comes to "why" evolution took the form it did. Either there was a pre-existing process that started the evolutionary process or there was an intelligent agency that set the evolutionary process in motion. If you accept the non-intelligent cause then of course the pre-existing process would require a pre-existing process and on and on.
The same holds true for the evolution of morality. I agree that there has been an overall advancement, (with a long way to go) in so-called civilization but that does not answer the question of whether or not the agency that caused it is moral or mindless.
Evolution is simply a process that gives a history of life. It does not tell us anything about why the process exists.
Tangle writes:
My own take on it is because your religious beliefs require the emotion of empathy to be god given and incapable of emerging naturally in the way all other emotions have. But if you accept the rest of evolution - for example that it can create bonds in many orders of animanls that allow them to co-operate to raise a family and defend the newborn against attack - what is so special about empathy that make it incapable of evolving? Do you deny that this emotion is also found in other primates?
I do accept that emotion can be found in other primates. I am not qualified to answer about whether it evolved or not, although I think that in some way Dawkins was on to something in his ideas about memes. However, once again that tells us nothing about whether the agency that brought this about is moral or totally mindless.
Tangle writes:
But it's not a belief we DO know that evolution created all the organisms on earth and all their traits and behaviours - including Homo. It is simply not rational to say that evolution could create everything else we see, but not that one thing.
What you're saying is analogous to looking at an object that comes out of a 3D printer and giving the printer the credit for pushing its own start button and for designing itself.
in a sense you have created a god out of the evolutionary process and a mindless god at that.
Tangle writes:
Altruism has been explained to you several times before, you simply ignore it as though it hasn't. Do I need to do it again?
You and others have posted unevidenced theories of how altruism evolved. Those theories may or may not be correct, but regardless, it still tells us nothing about why moralism and altruism have evolved the way they have.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2015 4:04 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 2:51 PM GDR has replied
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2015 4:58 PM GDR has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 338 of 375 (761203)
06-29-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by GDR
06-29-2015 2:33 PM


GDR
"You and others have posted unevidenced theories of how altruism evolved. Those theories may or may not be correct, but regardless, it still tells us nothing about why moralism and altruism have evolved the way they have."
Quite simply, cooperation is a better survival tool than competition.
Especially with animals like us who take so long to get off the tit, so to speak.
You want evidence of altruism/cooperation being our default position.
Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 2:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 3:15 PM Greatest I am has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 339 of 375 (761205)
06-29-2015 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Greatest I am
06-29-2015 2:51 PM


Once again you reply to your pre-conceived ideas of what you think I believe instead of actually reading what I post.
Frankly I find that video extremely unconvincing and a long way from being scientific. (All of those babies are old enough to have experienced love from their parents and will respond the way they have as a result of that love.) However, I don't actually disagree with the conclusions that they form.
Still, regardless of whether their conclusions are right or wrong it still tells us nothing about the cause or agency of why things are the way they are.
Try re-reading my last reply to Tangle. Like Tangle you confuse process with cause or agency.
AbE
GIA writes:
Quite simply, cooperation is a better survival tool than competition.
Especially with animals like us who take so long to get off the tit, so to speak.
You want evidence of altruism/cooperation being our default position.
Thought about this statement later which is off the point I was making.
You equate altruism with co-operation. Of course we gain by co-operating. It makes it easier to co-operate in order to combine assets to help the third world or to combine forces to commit genocide. Co-operation is not a moral position but simply a means to and end whether it be for good or evil.
Edited by GDR, : Had another thought.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 2:51 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 8:06 PM GDR has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 340 of 375 (761219)
06-29-2015 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by GDR
06-29-2015 2:33 PM


GDR writes:
The problem is that you keep confusing process with cause or agency.
I'm really not. I do genuinely understand why you say this but you're hoping for a loophole that isn't there.
We can get the agency/why thing out of the way quite easily by agreeing that the why question of life itself is not answered by the ToE. Science quite readily aknowledges this and doesn't yet have much of a clue about the abiogenesis thing - it's all 'watch this space' stuff. So put that to one side.
For whatever reason, you say God I say natural processes, the 'process' of evolution starts and we get to where we are today with millions of differentiated species of animals plants and micro-organisms.? So....
I simply accept evolution based on what the majority of people that do have specific knowledge on those subjects believe.
Having accepted evolution - albeit using the word 'believe' wrongly - you can't then say 'except for homo'. Evolution is, as you say, a process, a process that starts with a single replicating chain of chemicals and finishes, we know not where, but does not exclude the primates of which we are one.
Evolution is simply a process that gives a history of life. It does not tell us anything about why the process exists.
So we've accepted that we don't know why, what we're discussing now is how. And the how is the process of evolution. We know that many kind of animal species live in groups have developed altruistic behaviour - many organisms like insects can have no possible clue that the behaviour they exhibit in helping others of their species - ie, it's instinctive behaviour. But others like the higher order primates appear to have similar emotions to us and behave in deliberately altruistic ways.
You are avoiding this point - that the emotion that we call morality (empathy) evolved in the same way as other functions. The Catholics escape from this awkwardness by claiming that god set evolution off on its way and when homo came along he inserted a soul. Utter nonsense of course but it is at least a get out of jail play. How do you escape it?
This is not confusing agency and process; evolution has created altruism as part of the same process that created wings and lungs. Science says that the answer to why? altruism exists in mankind - and other species - is because it has survival advantages and is selected for in the usual way. The why? of morality is answered by the ToE. The why of life existing at all is not answered by the ToE.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 2:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 8:11 PM Tangle has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 341 of 375 (761239)
06-29-2015 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by GDR
06-29-2015 3:15 PM


GDR
Your,--- "Try re-reading my last reply to Tangle. Like Tangle you confuse process with cause or agency."
The process we can study. The cause or agency we cannot as that was evolutionary and over what is likely to be millions of years of selection from our past ancestors.
If you wish to know more you would have to study the lower animals I think but even then, I don't think you will ever know all of the DNA changes or errors that occurred to make us what we now are.
Your quest is like trying to find the cause of the big bang. Good luck.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 3:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 8:15 PM Greatest I am has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 342 of 375 (761240)
06-29-2015 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Tangle
06-29-2015 4:58 PM


GDR writes:
The problem is that you keep confusing process with cause or agency.
Tangle writes:
I'm really not. I do genuinely understand why you say this but you're hoping for a loophole that isn't there.
We can get the agency/why thing out of the way quite easily by agreeing that the why question of life itself is not answered by the ToE. Science quite readily aknowledges this and doesn't yet have much of a clue about the abiogenesis thing - it's all 'watch this space' stuff. So put that to one side.
For whatever reason, you say God I say natural processes, the 'process' of evolution starts and we get to where we are today with millions of differentiated species of animals plants and micro-organisms.? So....
I'm not at all sure which loophole you think I'm looking for but as far as the rest of the post is concerned we're pretty much on the same page. The only thing I'd add is if science is eventually able to come up with an explanation for abiogenesis it doesn't change anything. It would only be an explanation for how it happened. It wouldn't answer the question of whether or not it happened by blind chance or as a result of pre-existing intelligence, just as we agree is the case for evolution.
Incidentally there are those that do equate evolution with cause or agency and quite honestly I thought that is where you were at. My apologies.
Tangle writes:
Having accepted evolution - albeit using the word 'believe' wrongly - you can't then say 'except for homo'. Evolution is, as you say, a process, a process that starts with a single replicating chain of chemicals and finishes, we know not where, but does not exclude the primates of which we are one.
Agreed. I might add though that we can see that much of the evolutionary process happens naturally but we really don't know whether or not the process was tinkered with periodically. However, as regards to my Christianity I'm fine with it either way.
Tangle writes:
So we've accepted that we don't know why, what we're discussing now is how. And the how is the process of evolution. We know that many kind of animal species live in groups have developed altruistic behaviour - many organisms like insects can have no possible clue that the behaviour they exhibit in helping others of their species - ie, it's instinctive behaviour. But others like the higher order primates appear to have similar emotions to us and behave in deliberately altruistic ways.
You are avoiding this point - that the emotion that we call morality (empathy) evolved in the same way as other functions. The Catholics escape from this awkwardness by claiming that god set evolution off on its way and when homo came along he inserted a soul. Utter nonsense of course but it is at least a get out of jail play. How do you escape it?
This is not confusing agency and process; evolution has created altruism as part of the same process that created wings and lungs. Science says that the answer to why? altruism exists in mankind - and other species - is because it has survival advantages and is selected for in the usual way. The why? of morality is answered by the ToE. The why of life existing at all is not answered by the ToE.
There are two issues with this.
First off if we accept that altruism is simply one aspect of the evolutionary process then we are still left without knowing whether or not there is an intelligent moral agency behind it all. It is no different than the discussion around physical evolution.
However we do differ on the how. As I said to GIA, we live in groups and co-operate for our own good and for others of our group. We can use that sense of tribalism for our own benefit, for the benefit of others or to commit atrocities. What part of the evolutionary process would lead us to self sacrifice for others whom we have never met and never will, or to even give and love sacrificially for other species?
We don't even know what consciousness is. If all life is simply the result of mindless processes starting off in a universe of mindless particles the idea of right or wrong is just what seems to work in any given circumstance. Maybe one time it is good to co-operate with a neighbour, and other times it just works best to bump him off.
There is no hard evidence that altruism evolved as a component of the ToE. It is strictly a subjective conclusion. Certainly we can see people and societies being influenced by cultural memes but that frankly is the way that Christianity said it is supposed to work. Essentially Christ taught that we are called to go out and infect the world with God's love, justice, peace, mercy etc, which sounds a lot like Dawkins' cultural memes.
In both of our cases we hold a belief based on our subjective conclusions about the world we live in.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2015 4:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2015 3:28 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 343 of 375 (761242)
06-29-2015 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Greatest I am
06-29-2015 8:06 PM


GIA writes:
The cause or agency we cannot as that was evolutionary and over what is likely to be millions of years of selection from our past ancestors
Evolution is not cause or agency. Something was required to kick start the process. Was it an infinite regression of processes or was it because of a pre-existing intelligence? We can choose to believe either one but it is a subjective conclusion or belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Greatest I am, posted 06-29-2015 8:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by anglagard, posted 06-30-2015 2:49 AM GDR has replied
 Message 347 by Greatest I am, posted 06-30-2015 2:58 PM GDR has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 344 of 375 (761261)
06-30-2015 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by GDR
06-29-2015 8:15 PM


Causuality Breakdown
GDR writes:
Evolution is not cause or agency. Something was required to kick start the process. Was it an infinite regression of processes or was it because of a pre-existing intelligence? We can choose to believe either one but it is a subjective conclusion or belief.
I've said it before and I say it again, regardless of whether people like it or not, a philosophy of cause and effect always breaks down to a first uncaused cause be it named God or the singularity. It seems to me the only way around this dilemma is not to ask what happened before the singularity or who were God's parents but rather why are we exclusively compelled to believe in cause and effect as the only possible explanation.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 8:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by GDR, posted 07-01-2015 3:10 PM anglagard has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 345 of 375 (761262)
06-30-2015 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by GDR
06-29-2015 8:11 PM


GDR writes:
First off if we accept that altruism is simply one aspect of the evolutionary process then we are still left without knowing whether or not there is an intelligent moral agency behind it all. It is no different than the discussion around physical evolution.
The original cause of causes is not at issue here - the thing we're grappling with is understanding the origin of morality in people. Science's position, which is supported by the evidence, is that it evolved in the same way as all other organs, emotions and instincts.
However we do differ on the how.
So far you have not described how morality evolved in people, you're just raising questions about how it has evolutionary advantage in some extreem human situations, which I'll attempt to answer below.
But you have so far failed to accept the logic that the evolution of altruistic behaviour has survival advantage generally and that it exists in many animal species. It would help if you agreed with those general statements. If you can agree with those points, what we're then concerned with is not that altruism can't be something that originates in natural processes - including Homo - but something else. (Which I'm not clear about yet.)
As I said to GIA, we live in groups and co-operate for our own good and for others of our group. We can use that sense of tribalism for our own benefit, for the benefit of others or to commit atrocities. What part of the evolutionary process would lead us to self sacrifice for others whom we have never met and never will, or to even give and love sacrificially for other species?
It's the emotion of empathy. We feel empathy for all living creatures once we witness their suffering. Our feelings are greater for familiy and close friends and we would always protect them from harm before helping a stranger but we would still attempt to help a stranger in trouble. It's an instinct, an emotion - we can't help but feel it. Only those with damaged brains or mental illnesses are devoid of this basic feeling of empathy. People lived in small groups and that instinct to help the individuals in the group would have obvious survival advantage. As society developed our small groups increased in size until now we have knowledge of the suffering across the globe. The instinct is there, it's triggered by any form of suffering, all that's happened is that we're now aware of more of it.
Maybe one time it is good to co-operate with a neighbour, and other times it just works best to bump him off.
And we obviously do both, depending on the circumstances. That is not a problem for evolution, it says that a species will do whatever makes sense for its own survival, sometimes this is altruistic behaviour, sometimes it's 'red in tooth and claw'. The existence of suffering and evil, is a problem for religion to answer - and it can't.
There is no hard evidence that altruism evolved as a component of the ToE. It is strictly a subjective conclusion.
That is not true. The evidence for the evolution of altruism is very strong and is an accepted biological tenet. Here is a readable summary of the science:
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Certainly we can see people and societies being influenced by cultural memes but that frankly is the way that Christianity said it is supposed to work. Essentially Christ taught that we are called to go out and infect the world with God's love, justice, peace, mercy etc, which sounds a lot like Dawkins' cultural memes.
And I teach peace and love to my kids too but I'm not a Christian. It is absolutely not the case that morality only exists in Christianity or that it didn't exist before Christ. Empathy is universal regardless of belief and exists in many animal species, that's the issue you need to address. You are at liberty to say 'god did it' but you have to then say when, where and how and why he gave it to ants and apes too.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by GDR, posted 06-29-2015 8:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by GDR, posted 07-01-2015 3:58 PM Tangle has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024