There is no reason to believe the Source of the process that evolved intelligence lacked intelligence.
Actually, there is. The full range of life on this planet demonstrates a full range of intelligence, from humans down to bacteria. Unintelligent life existed long before intelligent life, and the latter demonstrably evolved from the former. Of course, that’s not conclusive proof, but it certainly suggests more that the process was unintelligent than that it was intelligent.
There is no inconsistency between theism and evolution when it is realised that natural selection is an inadequate explanation of rational beings.
Leading language on your part - the word “realised” implies acceptance of a fact. The appropriate word is “speculated,” given that plenty of evolutionary scientists have provided plausible theories of how rationality evolved via Natural Selection. Your decision to reject the opinions of those who are in the best position to comment, does not magically make these experts incorrect.
IThe onus is on you given that rational persons are not generally regarded as collections of non-rational particles. The disparity is too great to be ignored.
Yet again, the theist must be reminded that the burden of proof lies with the claimant… Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand? Surely it’s obvious?
Please refer to my previous answer. The value of life is more consistent with its creation by God than by purposeless processes.
Sorry, but you can’t just quote “the value of life” without providing an objective rationale for it, and expect this to trump the volumes of evidence for evolution. That is irrational.
To recognise the common good is not necessarily to accept it as an obligation.
Nor did I state that it was. The fact remains that theists are consistently - and laughably - unable to demonstrate any evidence for their mantra that atheists are less moral than theists. What’s more, those accepting that their morality comes from basic human values are able to provide a rationale for their moral behavious, whereas theists have to admit they’re told how to behave in a book.
Many people are not concerned about the species - or even their own family. What reason is there to regard selfish individuals as misguided?
Your comment is true of theists as well as atheists. I have answered your question. It’s not my fault that you can’t see through your own dogmatic reliance on a book to guide your behaviour. Open your mind.
The correspondence between their beliefs and actions is objective.
You’ve tied yourself in a bit of a knot here. You’re saying that theists can justify whatever actions they commit, as long as they can demonstrate that they truly believed they were doing the right thing!
An atheist, Ernest Nagel, pointed out that it is a source of opportunities. I add:- for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment.
So your objective, immutable source… is just another human being. Nice.
My belief is reasonable because it is based on the success of science which demonstrates that the power of reason is far superior to the haphazard meanderings of blind processes. To attempt to derive persons from particles is a forlorn enterprise.
Then you completely misunderstand science. Science does not demonstrate the “superiority” of reason over blind process. Superiority has to have context, and that context is invariably subjective. You’re talking nonsense, and this does not address my comment in the slightest.
The bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament is not the loving Father of the New Testament.
Oh right - so you just selectively edit out the bits that show God to be an immoral, capricious, murderous, sexist, racist tyrant? That’s alright then.
The pure monotheism and moral code of the primitive Jews contrasted sharply with the polytheism of other tribes. Although primitive they had remarkable insight into the nature of God as He Who Is…
That’s an interesting statement. Can you clarify, and isolate where the Jews got their superious morality from?
Then why aren’t they regarded as morally responsible for what they do?
Because they do not have the level of intelligence and morality that we humans do. I’m not sure if you’re saying morality is either there or not, rather than on a continuum as the evidence suggests. But given that you apparently discount morality in animals, I guess this is exactly what you’re saying.
I happen to be a vegetarian but not on moral grounds - apart from the unnecessary cruelty meted out to animals.
We obviously benefit from animals but that fact does not exclude their intrinsic value or their right to be treated with compassion. Man is not the measure of all things. Life is precious regardless of our existence.
It was a hypothetical question. Do you understand the point I was making? That the criterion of “not harming others” is open to interpretation? Eating meat is just an example.
