Thoughts on a Debate

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Good’ is generally being used in the meaning of ‘morally good’. Whereas when I used the word I meant ‘desired’ with no moral implications.

That’s the problem Freddy because objective morality was the whole point. let’s go back to the beginning.

I would like to address your offensive “moral law” argument that says that without God as an objective moral standard atheists who do not have the influence of theism would be immoral beings.

What I am saying is that atheists can’t justify morality. That is the point. What I am saying is that you cannot justify “why not murder innocent people to get what you want?”

If there is no God then… if atheism is true there is no ultimate standard so there can be no moral obligations or duties. In an atheistic worldview who or what lays such duties upon us? No one… Remember, for the atheist humans are just accidents of nature. Highly evolved animals but animals have **no moral obligations to one another.

** When a cat kills a mouse it hasn’t done anything morally wrong the cat is just being a cat. If an otter or a duck rapes and kills a female and has sex with its corpse. Has it done anything morally wrong? No, the duck and the otter are just being ducks and otters. If God doesn’t exist, we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

And they became, by the process of natural selection, fixed in the population.

So, can evolution explain morality? That is what you are really suggesting. First of all Moral laws are not chemical or biological; they are immaterial and come from personal agents. If there is no God there is no such thing as a “law”. Secondly Chemistry and biology are descriptive not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive. Not what ought to survive. Survival of the fittest?

That’s exactly what Hitler believed in That’s why he was trying to get rid of the unfit because the unfit were taking resources away from the fit

If survival is all that matters… Should we rape to survive? If survival is our goal then maybe we ought to rape. We could propagate our DNA by raping right? Many species in the animal kingdom do propagate via rape. Why not us? You can rape and survive that way. You don’t need consent if there is no objective morality. Also, should we murder the weak to survive? That’s Hitler’s point.

We do these things because they are good in the sense that they allowed us to survive - a preferable outcome to not surviving. And have then classed them as good from a moral perspective.

Consistency demands then that you would say that homosexuality is immoral. After all it doesn’t do anything to help us survive. If all people adopted it… It would be the end of humanity’s survival within 100 years. So… therefore it’s immoral? I’m sure you have heard of Theists referring to the “Natural Law”. Glad to see you and I agree on one thing.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

So it’s an evolved characteristic that we’re talking about. And did God put it there to help us survive? If you want to believe that then yes. He did. But He put it there because it worked.

For example God’s essential attribute of Love is expressed in his command to Love your neighbor as yourself. This command provides the foundation from which we can affirm the objective goodness of Generosity, Self-Sacrifice, and equality. From this we can condemn as objectively evil; greed, abuse, and discrimination. However this does a bring question… Is something good just because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? The answer is neither one! God wills something because HE IS GOOD.

"…says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts…" Jeremiah 31:33

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them."
Romans 2:15

Do people take advantage of this? Yes they do. Will they gain an advantage by doing so? Often they can. But those people remain in the minority. If they didn’t, then society would collapse.

If there is no God, you cannot condemn these people for surviving by being selfish. Society might collapse sure but they would be King of the Ashes and still survive. Worked well for Genghis Khan.

DC: Well that’s an “is”… That is not an “ought”. Stalin would say… “Fine, I’m gonna survive by killing you and taking your stuff.” Why is he wrong?

Why is he wrong?

DC: If Hitler, Stalin, or Genghis Khan came along and said I don’t want to be altruistic I want to be selfish and take everything for myself. If I have to kill you to do that then so be it!” Why is that OBJECTIVELY wrong?

If people don’t have the altruistic gene they aren’t doing anything wrong they are just following their DNA.

if you are just a moist robot made of electric meat why should you believe ANYTHING YOU THINK?

 

[Freddy]

Consistency demands then that you would say that homosexuality is immoral. After all it doesn’t do anything to help us survive. If all people adopted it… It would be the end of humanity’s survival within 100 years. So… therefore it’s immoral? I’m sure you have heard of Theists referring to the “Natural Law”. Glad to see you and I agree on one thing.

That which enabled us to survive didn’t include assault under normal conditions. It did include aspects of survival that now result in arguments about abortion and euthanasia.

But there are positive actions one could take (in that you had to actively do something) like sharing food, having children etc. And negative acts such as killing women of child bearing age. Under exceptional situations, you wouldn’t kill them but assault them. We see this in war situations where rape is very common. In those circumstances we often unfortunately revert to very unpleasant instincts.

Homosexuality? Entirely neutral. Not a positive gain nor negative loss. Evolution could care less.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Homosexuality? Entirely neutral. Not a positive gain nor negative loss. Evolution could care less.

because they are good in the sense that they allowed us to survive - a preferable outcome to not surviving. And have then classed them as good from a moral perspective.

These two statements seem completely contradictory to me Freddy. It’s clear that homosexuality has no value towards survival and in fact is detrimental to human survival.

I noticed that you skipped over a lot of things in your response. It’s clear that objective morality has no place in an atheistic worldview.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Homosexuality? Entirely neutral. Not a positive gain nor negative loss. Evolution could care less.

because they are good in the sense that they allowed us to survive - a preferable outcome to not surviving. And have then classed them as good from a moral perspective.

These two statements seem completely contradictory to me Freddy. It’s clear that homosexuality has no value towards survival and in fact is detrimental to human survival.

I noticed that you skipped over a lot of things in your response. It’s clear that objective morality has no place in an atheistic worldview.

Lots of things have no value in helping us survive. If you prefer fish over beef. If you have curly hair. If you like folk music over blues. If you find an overbite sexy. All of these are entirely neutral and none of them aid our survival. Which doesn’t make them detrimental.

And you’re not correct about objective morality. It’s not that it has no place. It’s that it doesn’t exist. Well, in my humble opinion.

 

[Elf01]

Lots of things have no value in helping us survive. If you prefer fish over beef. If you have curly hair. If you like folk music over blues. If you find an overbite sexy. All of these are entirely neutral and none of them aid our survival. Which doesn’t make them detrimental.

Without technology or relations with someone of the opposite sex despite not being attracted to them a homosexual won’t have children.

I would class that as bad for evolution.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Lots of things have no value in helping us survive. If you prefer fish over beef. If you have curly hair. If you like folk music over blues. If you find an overbite sexy. All of these are entirely neutral and none of them aid our survival. Which doesn’t make them detrimental.

Without technology or relations with someone of the opposite sex despite not being attracted to them a homosexual won’t have children.

I would class that as bad for evolution.

Homosexuality only relates to a few percent of the population. Maybe 3 - 5%? A much greater proportion of heterosexual people simply don’t want children ( In March 2020, Quest reported that research had shown that, in Belgium, 11% of women and 16% of men between the ages of 25 and 35 did not want children.[[8]])(Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia)

Those percentages are irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. It works on populations, not individuals.