Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306993031' post='2249086']
Communist States like the USSR were/are officially atheist. Outlawed religion and specifically targeted religious people. And it wasn't because of atheism? Hard to believe. Also atheists must come to the realization that atheism can be a [i]positive[/i] belief, not just negative. The atheism that the Communist employ(ed) is a form of [i]positive [/i]atheism.

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism" - Vladimir Lenin


Edited for typos, that I could find :]
[/quote]

Why do you think they targeted religious people. What's the logic behind that?

I would call it anti theism or more precisely anti-religion instead of positive atheism.

Why would the propagation of atheism be necessary for the USSR?

[quote]
It is against the natural law. But purely from a naturalist/Darwinist POV homosexual is against nature. It endangers the propagation of the species.[/quote]

There are instances of higher mammals engajing in homosexual behaviour and a group of homosexuals does not endanger the propagation of the species. The genes for it would not get passed on anyways.

Two points I should add: I would have to look up the genetics supporting this (most probably a spectrum) and such evolutionary arguments shuld be applied with care.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1306994300' post='2249091']
If there is no absolute answer then there is no such thing as objectivity i.e. objective good and objective evil. Therefore any "hierarchy" constructed is purely subjective, so murder is not necessarily "much worse" than theft. The "hierarchy" idea itself cannot stand because any part of the hierarchy can be rearranged or moved - and no objective argument can be made for or against where each "crime" (which is also relative) is placed or replaced.
[/quote]

Yes, athiestic morality mostly rejects objective morality given by an objective moral law giver, and hiearchies are purely subjective.

You're speaking from a nihlistic point of view, who are the ones who question these things. I myself rely on the biological and evolutionary arguement for morality, in which empathy is involved which usually (in normal human beings) restrains people against killing another more than stealing from another.

But yes, one "side effect" is that it's relative.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306994305' post='2249092']
Why do you think they targeted religious people. What's the logic behind that?

I would call it anti theism or more precisely anti-religion instead of positive atheism.

Why would the propagation of atheism be necessary for the USSR? [/quote]


Call it whatever you wish, in reality it was positive atheism. Vladimir Lenin was honest enough to admit his agenda was atheism. You define atheism one way, Lenin, the USSR and other Communist states have defined or employed it a different way. Without objective truth, your truth, and the truth employed by the USSR and other Communist states are of equal value. Unless perhaps one factors in Survival of the fittest. Then because your just a single person and Communist states are collectives their more right than you because their stronger and out number you.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306994305' post='2249092']There are instances of higher mammals engajing in homosexual behaviour and a group of homosexuals does not endanger the propagation of the species. The genes for it would not get passed on anyways.
[/quote]

The genes not getting passed on is the whole point. Survival of the fittest and all that, engaging in homosexuality ensures the death of that family lineage. Any genetic gains by 'evolution' are lost with the person's death.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1306994300' post='2249091']
If there is no absolute answer then there is no such thing as objectivity i.e. objective good and objective evil. Therefore any "hierarchy" constructed is purely subjective, so murder is not necessarily "much worse" than theft. The "hierarchy" idea itself cannot stand because any part of the hierarchy can be rearranged or moved - and no objective argument can be made for or against where each "crime" (which is also relative) is placed or replaced.
[/quote]

Excellent point. If there is no objective truth, then all "truths" are then equal. So the propaganda employed by Lenin was just as much truth, good and morality as any other truth, good or morality.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306995057' post='2249095']
Call it whatever you wish, in reality it was positive atheism. Vladimir Lenin was honest enough to admit his agenda was atheism. You define atheism one way, the Lenin, USSR and other Communist states have defined or employed it a different way. Without objective truth, your truth, and the truth employed by the USSR and other Communist states are of equal value. Unless perhaps one factors in Survival of the fittest. Then because your just a single person and Communist states are collectives their more right than you because their stronger and out number you.[/quote]

I'm going to look up why the USSR adopted State atheism, because I think the why is relevant.

[quote]The genes not getting passed on is the whole point. Survival of the fittest and all that, engaging in homosexuality ensures the death of that family lineage. Any genetic gains by 'evolution' are lost with the person's death.
[/quote]

I edited the previous post but slightly before you posted yours so I'll just add it again here:

Two points I should add: I would have to look up the genetics supporting this (most probably a spectrum) and such evolutionary arguments should be applied with care. Humans are a species that voluntarily in many cases do a 'genetic suicide', which means choosing not to have children. Should they be declared unnatural from the evolutionary POV?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306995205' post='2249097']
Excellent point. If there is no objective truth, then all "truths" are then equal. So the propaganda employed by Lenin was just as much truth, good and morality as any other truth, good or morality.
[/quote]

We're all social animals living in a society trying to get along with eachother and live well. That's a truth, otherwise we would be choosing a solitary lifestyle rather than living as we do. The things is, we don't always get along and see eye to eye.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306995850' post='2249101']
We're all social animals living in a society trying to get along with eachother. That's a truth, otherwise we would be choosing a solitary lifestyle rather than living as we do. The things is, we don't always get along and see eye to eye.
[/quote]

If there is no objective truth society is nothing anyone is actually bound to obey or get along with, and one society's truth is just as equal in value as another society's truth.
Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory but they used this as justification to support and employ their unholy acts, they were not murdering men, but terminating animals.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306996316' post='2249103']
If there is no objective truth society is nothing anyone is actually bound to obey or get along with, and one society's truth is just as equal in value as another society's truth.
Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory but they used this as justification to support and employ their unholy acts, they were not murdering men, but terminating animals.
[/quote]

No, there is no objective Truth, but that doesn't automatically lay all opinions on equal ground.

[quote]Communist thought of man to be nothing more than an animal based upon their perspective of Darwinian theory[/quote]

Did they actually say this? Though if there were looking for a justification, they would've found one, no matter what they believed.

Edit: some Muslims preach death to unbelievers...

Edit again: if you're going to try and bait me into trying to defend the communists because they were athiests I'm not going to do it.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']
No, there is no objective Truth, but that doesn't automatically lay all opinions on equal ground. [/quote]

Who's stronger is a factor. But yes pretty much without objective truth, there is no truth and only opinion. Everyone's opinions are equal, a opinion is a opinion. "I'm ok, you're ok" relativism.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']Did they actually say this? Though if there were looking for a justification, they would've found one, no matter what they believed.
[/quote]

Yes under the USSR and other Communist man is just a product of evolution of animal husbandry. Which is the case if man has no soul. Without a soul man is just a mere animal.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']
Edit: some Muslims preach death to unbelievers...[/quote]

Without objective truth, without objective morality, the opinion of belief [i]death to unbelievers[/i] cannot be said to be objectively wrong. One can have the opinion, but that would be just an opinion.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306996622' post='2249104']Edit again: if you're going to try and bait me into trying to defend the communists because they were athiests I'm not going to do it.
[/quote]

Oh I'm not asking you to defend it at all. I only state that it was atheism, not your form of atheism but it was atheism, and that without objective truth their version of atheism is no more wrong or right than other forms of atheism.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306994598' post='2249094']
I myself rely on the biological and evolutionary arguement for morality, in which empathy is involved which usually (in normal human beings) restrains people against killing another more than stealing from another.

But yes, one "side effect" is that it's relative.
[/quote]

You rely on an argument that is relative?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307028370' post='2249174']
You rely on an argument that is relative?
[/quote]

Case sensitive.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306997767' post='2249107']
Without objective truth, without objective morality, the opinion of belief [i]death to unbelievers[/i] cannot be said to be objectively wrong. One can have the opinion, but that would be just an opinion.



Oh I'm not asking you to defend it at all. I only state that it was atheism, not your form of atheism but it was atheism, and that without objective truth their version of atheism is no more wrong or right than other forms of atheism.
[/quote]

Its a question of which premises you have. I would say that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort in my opinion. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

To me the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in my opinion, or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307031207' post='2249188']
Its a question of which premises you have. [b]I would say[/b] that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort [b]in my opinion[/b]. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

[b]To me[/b] the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in[b] my opinion[/b], or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).
[/quote]

Highlighted to show subjectivity

Edited June 2, 2011 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307031207' post='2249188']
Its a question of which premises you have. I would say that the statement "there is a god who encourages people to kill unbelievers" is objectively wrong, without being proven that such a god exists in fact exists first. So that would be wrong, because killing is only valid as a last resort in my opinion. Simply saying that there is an objective morality but then postulating what that is does not stand on valid ground.

To me the example above looks a lot more like tribal morality (kin selection) being objectified and at the whims of a supposed objective law giver who is free to say if killing is okay one moment and not okay in the next. Just saying that it comes from an objective source makes it no more morally good in my opinion, or right.

I'm not a moral nihilist either and don't lean my arguments for moral arguments that come from outside of myself on whether gods exist or not.

If they used Darwinism to defend why it would be okay to kill people, they're adding interpretations that don't necessarily follow to the theory and applying it to people. It's on the same level as the Nazi's use of social Darwinism (which was not thought up by a biologist, btw. Maybe if it had it wouldn't have been twisted and perverted as much).
[/quote]

"To me" "my opinion" etc etc and that's all [i]well[/i] and [i]good[/i] but without object truth any argument you can come up with, any argument about any form of morality what so ever is just your opinion and it is no more right or wrong than any others opinion about morality.

Communists used Darwinism to explain that man was just an animal. When animals kill other animals it is not immoral, there's no evil in a dog killing a chicken, it's just nature. If man has no soul man is just a animal and "murder" like God is just a social construct based on opinion and open for interpretation.

Communist had a different form of morality than you, without objective truth and objective morality their form of morality was true just as true as your form of morality. Their truth was true for them and your truth is true for you. In Communist Russia the termination of the life cycles of 20 million upright apes was [i]good[/i] based on their morality.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist