Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307033032' post='2249196']
Highlighted to show subjectivity
[/quote]

Yes, there is no objectivity. If we were to discuss what actions would benefit both you and me, as a micro society, that would look like objectivity IMO when projected onto other micro societies or on others who would join ours.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307033333' post='2249197']
"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.
[/quote]

Is it immoral for us to kill another animal for food?

Dogs killing chickens are not part of the same group stuggling for survival as a group (species, pack, herd, tribe, family or whatever level of society) so it would be wrong to associate something that emerges from social constructs to one where there is none. As for lions and other big cats, they don't have the mental capacity to reflect on those instinctual aspects of what keeps their groups stable. They have no concept of morality, so to speak.

Though they do have a level of cooperation, but mostly at the group (pride) level. Hardly complex societies...

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307038370' post='2249230']
You do realize that Catholicism teaches that condom use is immoral, don't you? It's for the same reasons that homosexuality is wrong. (Although most forms of Protestantism have trouble putting 2 and 2 together like this: they think homosexuality is wrong, but contraception is OK.)[/quote]

So that would be all condom use then. Okay. I think those are seriously flawed, but that's just me.

[quote]I'm saying that condom use is pretty much never good. For it to be acceptable, you *really* have to come up with bizarre scenarios. (Look at what Pope Benedict said several months ago, and how convoluted his statement was!)

Are you saying that playing Russian Roulette with your spouse's life/health is morally acceptable so long as you try to make sure that there's as few bullets in the gun as possible, and you have fun doing it? Or maybe, "risking a person's life is justified so long as I don't risk their life any more than necessary for me to enjoy it"?

Marriage is not a license for a physical relationship, it is a protection for the children of that union.[/quote]

Yeah...complicated issue. On one hand you have a consensus, on the other the freedom for both people to choose what to do with their lives, on the other you have children that need to be looked after and should have a choice in the matter...


[quote]For your other conversations, I would recommend that you subscribe to the Austro-Libertarian "Non Aggression Principle." It is at least an internally consistent philosophy, even if it does fail to protect you from arguments about *why* it's immoral to initiate aggression.
[/quote]

I'll look that up...

Morality is a philosophically complicated subject, especially when you're coming from my position in which it is all relative and context sensitive. There are no clear borders and not as black and white., so no clear and good answers.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307043289' post='2249260']
I am glad that you admit it is your opinion, and therefore could very well be as wrong as it could be right. Or in fact it would be neither because "wrong" and "right" technically do not exist, they are created according to a secular worldview.
[/quote]

And change to accomodate an evolving society in it's complexities and potential problems and issues.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307040280' post='2249233']
Your opinion is not objective.
[/quote]

No "opinion" is objective.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307044972' post='2249275']
this might be something that you should start a new thread about, as we are seriously derailing Silverphin's thread.
[/quote]

I don't mind the thread being derailed, the original topic has been milked dry anyways, except maybe in the context of why the USSR went to such lengths to implement atheism...

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307044656' post='2249274']
Can anyone define what objective morality is?

1. What is it?
2. Who is the authority?
3. How do people know what the objective morals are?

As an atheist I do not have a definition of this concept. If you want an open and honest debate about this, we need to be clear with regards to what it is that we are debating.
[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma"]Euthyphro's Dilemma[/url]

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307047353' post='2249295']
The Communists of the USSR and others believe(d) whole heartily their program [b]necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
[/b][/quote]
The highlighted bit sounds suspiciously like your words.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307047353' post='2249295']
So you admit the would be reality that would be if objective truth does not exist that it is not immoral for the societies to enslave and allow murder of unwanted groups of people?
[/quote]
I can't make a statement as to what is moral or immoral as I do not understand or agree with the concepts of moral/immoral, hence I cannot say that A is immoral or not immoral.

I am happy to say that in my opinion enslaving people and pointless murder of people is detrimental to some people and to society.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307056906' post='2249318']
The highlighted bit sounds suspiciously like your words.[/quote]

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

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307056906' post='2249318']I can't make a statement as to what is moral or immoral as I do not understand or agree with the concepts of moral/immoral, hence I cannot say that A is immoral or not immoral.

I am happy to say that in my opinion enslaving people and pointless murder of people is detrimental to some people and to society.
[/quote]

That's just sad.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307056906' post='2249318']
I can't make a statement as to what is moral or immoral as I do not understand or agree with the concepts of moral/immoral, hence I cannot say that A is immoral or not immoral.[/quote]

You would call yourself a non cognitivist?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307038370' post='2249230']
You do realize that Catholicism teaches that condom use is immoral, don't you? It's for the same reasons that homosexuality is wrong. (Although most forms of Protestantism have trouble putting 2 and 2 together like this: they think homosexuality is wrong, but contraception is OK.)

I'm saying that condom use is pretty much never good. For it to be acceptable, you *really* have to come up with bizarre scenarios. (Look at what Pope Benedict said several months ago, and how convoluted his statement was!)

Are you saying that playing Russian Roulette with your spouse's life/health is morally acceptable so long as you try to make sure that there's as few bullets in the gun as possible, and you have fun doing it? Or maybe, "risking a person's life is justified so long as I don't risk their life any more than necessary for me to enjoy it"?

Marriage is not a license for a physical relationship, it is a protection for the children of that union.

For your other conversations, I would recommend that you subscribe to the Austro-Libertarian "Non Aggression Principle." It is at least an internally consistent philosophy, even if it does fail to protect you from arguments about *why* it's immoral to initiate aggression.
[/quote]

I looked up the non aggression principle, and do subscribe to the idea, but the main problem with it is, as Amppax pointed out, what a good one definition of 'harm' is, and doesn't make it any easier to explain to others. But the libertarian idea of personal freedom is one that I can strongly relate to.

Which brings me to the example of condom use for people with HIV, just so you see how I view these things, even if you don't agree:

Firstly, I think it's important to define what the "evil" would be in

For two people who do not have children or any other dependent third party to consider, it's up to them. I don't see it as immoral if both choose out of their free will, provided that both know the potential consequences. A case in which one partner hides the fact that he or she is HIV positive is immoral IMO, whether they use condoms or not.

As for a couple with children or any other dependent third party, at first I was tempted to say that they shouldn't risk it even with condoms. But since I value informed personal freedom I spent a bit more time to reconsider. The thing is, people put themselves in knowingly risky situations all the time. What are the odds of people with dependents getting into fatal car accidents for instance? People are aware of risks and factors that are beyond their control when they get in the car...
Or what about parents who have risky jobs such as policemen or people serving in the military? Should anyone volunteer to put themselves in those situations?

In the context in which there are dependents, what would be the difference between those two cases of people who choose to put themselves in a knowingly risky situation?

I think at best one could hope that they would act responsibly

It seems that organisations such as the FDA and CDC are claiming that the HIV virus does not pass through latex condoms, only older "natural" ones such as lambskin, and they take the scientific approach to this, which I feel is way more credible. The Church should restrict itself to matters within its own domain, not spread misinformation to maintain a view that in the end is [i]not[/i] helping the decrease of HIV victims and because of this [i]is[/i] causing disastrous consequences in Africa. Some of the numbers on percentages of the population infected are just almost unbelievable. This is a big issue, and I doubt that places such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention would lie or that it's all pro-condom unsubstantiated propaganda.


Here's a link to an article with references : [url="http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm"]http://www.condoms4l...domsAndAIDS.htm[/url]

Fortunately the another page in the site even mentions people within the Catholic Church that are trying to cause change in regards to whether condoms are "evil".

Edited June 3, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307067674' post='2249371']
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism" - Vladimir Lenin
[/quote]
That's an interesting quote, I would say that Lenin doesn't have a very good grasp on what Atheist means.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307067674' post='2249371']
That's just sad.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by this?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307072303' post='2249383']
You would call yourself a non cognitivist?
[/quote]
Never heard this term before. Going by the Wikipedia definition
[quote]
[b]Non-cognitivism[/b] is the [url="/wiki/Meta-ethics"]meta-ethical[/url] view that ethical [url="/wiki/Sentence_(linguistics)"]sentences[/url] do not express [url="/wiki/Proposition"]propositions[/url] and thus cannot be [url="/wiki/Truth_value"]true or false[/url]
[/quote]

I would say that is not my stance. I would say that moral and immoral seem to be religious terms, they imply a static set of objective wrong and rights, merely being an action that moves one closer to or away from god.

I have no belief in god therefore I don't have a concept of closer or away from god. I very much don't agree that there is an objective set of wrong and rights. I feel life is extremely complicated and each situation ought to be analised, contemplated and evaluated in its own right. A society governs the collective set of rules that we generally abide to, I like common law as it allows these rules to evolve into generally a more fair and tolerant place. I also like the idea of a jury of peers within a society.

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307047353' post='2249295']
Again your just giving your opinion, and just describing one form of atheism know as negative atheism. Yes positive Atheism is anti-theist but it's still a form of atheism because it denies the existence of any gods. Labeling positive atheism as just anti-theist is a lame cop-out, in a lame attempt to shrug off the sick crimes committed by atheists. But in any event your understanding of what atheism is or is not is just your opinion. The Communists of the USSR and others believe(d) whole heartily their program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
[/quote]
A quick read on Wikipedia shows me that anti theists can actually be theists themselves but against a particular belief
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism"]Antitheism - Wikipedia[/url]
[quote]
it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a [url="/wiki/Theism"]theistic[/url] context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods
[/quote]
So with this in mind anti theism is not a brand or subset of Atheism.
In actual fact I would guess that the Atheist group would have a lower percentage of anti theists than Catholocism.
I am not anti Catholic, or Protostant, or Anglican, or Aventist, or Mormon, or Free Mason, or Islam, Jewish, Bhudism, Hinduism...

Reading several posts on this forum I can see that there are many Catholics that are anti Protostant, Free Mason, Islam...

But it is interesting that you group the beliefs of Communists of USSR by what one USSR Communist said. And it is interesting that you make out that Atheism is his defining label. I feel you are either intentionally trying to mislead or you are simply misguided with regards to your understanding of what it means to be an Atheist. I have been one my whole life, you converted from Atheist to something else at some point in your life, maybe so long ago that you can't even remember being an Atheist.

You also state that positive Atheism is anti-theist, but that is not true. A person that believes that there is no god, does not necessarily hate or oppose religion. This person can hold this belief and can also be tolerant of religion and religious organisations.

Your attempt to villify an Atheist stance is very misguided and somewhat dishonest.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307086582' post='2249416']
That's an interesting quote, I would say that Lenin doesn't have a very good grasp on what Atheist means.[/quote]

If there is no objective truth then I don't know why his grasp is any thing else less than yours. Because it isn't, it was his opinion and you have another. Without objective truth you can't argue as though objective truth exist so at the end of the day his truth is just as true as your truth. Welcome to the crazy world of relativism.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307086582' post='2249416']I'm not sure what you mean by this?[/quote]

I'm sorry I've forgotten, "sad" is just another social construct that only actually exist in the imagination of people. Sorry bout that just forget all about it.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307086582' post='2249416']Never heard this term before. Going by the Wikipedia definition [/quote]

Wikipedia FTW! But Oooh too bad so sad this source is nothing more than just another opinion and that's all. If you don't believe in objective truth stop arguing as though it exist.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307086582' post='2249416']I would say that is not my stance. I would say that moral and immoral seem to be religious terms, they imply a static set of objective wrong and rights, merely being an action that moves one closer to or away from god.[/quote]

That's sad... wait... never mind

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307086582' post='2249416']I have no belief in god therefore I don't have a concept of closer or away from god. I very much don't agree that there is an objective set of wrong and rights. I feel life is extremely complicated and each situation ought to be analised, contemplated and evaluated in its own right. A society governs the collective set of rules that we generally abide to, I like common law as it allows these rules to evolve into generally a more fair and tolerant place. I also like the idea of a jury of peers within a society.
[/quote]

That's a might pretty opinion, but others in world history and others in the world today have had different opinions and without objective truth theirs is just as important and true as yours even if each conflict like crazy. You may think a black man is a person under the law, another person in another society may believe the opposite. Without objective truth, and 'truth' being left up to society or the individual, both opinions are of equal value.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']
A quick read on Wikipedia shows me that anti theists can actually be theists themselves but against a particular belief
Antitheism - Wikipedia[/quote]

Oh I'm sure anti-theists can believe in gods, still though the atheists of the USSR and other communist states were in actuality atheists and enforced what they believe were atheist policies.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']So with this in mind anti theism is not a brand or subset of Atheism.
In actual fact I would guess that the Atheist group would have a lower percentage of anti theists than Catholocism.
I am not anti Catholic, or Protostant, or Anglican, or Aventist, or Mormon, or Free Mason, or Islam, Jewish, Bhudism, Hinduism...

Reading several posts on this forum I can see that there are many Catholics that are anti Protostant, Free Mason, Islam...[/quote]

Just more of your own personal opinion. There is positive atheism and negative atheism. Deal with it or don't doesn't matter to me.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']But it is interesting that you group the beliefs of Communists of USSR by what one USSR Communist said. And it is interesting that you make out that Atheism is his defining label. I feel you are either intentionally trying to mislead or you are simply misguided with regards to your understanding of what it means to be an Atheist. I have been one my whole life, you converted from Atheist to something else at some point in your life, maybe so long ago that you can't even remember being an Atheist.[/quote]

Without objective truth I don't see how my opinion is any less than yours sure you don't like it sure but I'm just as right and speak just as much truth as do you. Problem?

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']You also state that positive Atheism is anti-theist, but that is not true. A person that believes that there is no god, does not necessarily hate or oppose religion. This person can hold this belief and can also be tolerant of religion and religious organisations. [/quote]

You don't believe in objective truth, or so I thought, so again your no person to declare what is true and what is not. To you it's 'true' that Atheism is not anti-theist, but denying objective truth, your truth is simply your relative opinion and really nothing more.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']Atheism is anti-theistYour attempt to villify an Atheist stance is very misguided and somewhat dishonest.
[/quote]

From my POV what I've stated is objective truth, atheists have murdered millions of people in the modern age in the name of atheism, of course that brand of atheism is a positive doctrine of denial, but it was and is a form of atheism, like it or lump it. There exist two forms of atheism positive and negative. Without objective truth you simply cannot say which is actually atheist and which is not. Unless you are going to admit that objective truth exist, you should cease arguing as though it does exist. It would help you though to admit objective truth exist because it would make your argument something more than just mere opinion that can be easily dismissed, into something more of an actual challenge that doesn't stand on sand.

Edited June 3, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307094398' post='2249420']
Reading several posts on this forum I can see that there are many Catholics that are anti Protostant, Free Mason, Islam...
[/quote]

On the contrary, Catholics love. We love not because we are called to but because we want to. It is Christ Who shows us the way and corrects us when we err. What you see here is an internet forum. You do not see our souls or the prayers in our hearts when we kneel before the Blessed Sacrament. Since we believe - know - that the Holy Catholic Church is the fullness of Truth we want all peoples to embrace Her. For their salvation and for God's glory. We love Protestants, Masons, and Muslims. But that does not mean we have to like their religions. If just for a second they knew what Catholics know, truly knew, they would be falling over each other to get to the nearest Church. And we would already be there, ready to open the doors.