Without a God, Are we just animals?

[AnAtheist]

There is no morality other than the morality of survival of the fittest. So, there is no “good” to do without God, and there is no “evil” to be done.

As humans are social beings the fittest are those who behave socially. Or good so to speak.

When one animal kills or hurts another animal, does anyone claim it is immoral, or evil?

If a cow kills a cow the other cows might claim that.

 

[justinthemartyr]

your two statements make no sense, can you please expound.

what makes something more “fit” than another? is there an ideal? that is what you are implying. who makes the ideal?

please prove that a cow knows when another cow is killed and acknowledges it. does it take the other cow to cow court?

 

[AnAtheist]

what makes something more “fit” than another? is there an ideal? that is what you are implying. who makes the ideal?

No, there is no ideal. In a social context (like a herd, a horde or a nation) people doing bad thing are less likely to reproduce than people doing good things. Good = has a positive influence on the society, like not stealing, murdering, lying.
You can’t hunt a mammoth if you can’t trust your fellow caveman. So caves without a moral code would not have survived the ice age.

 

[justinthemartyr]

No, there is no ideal. In a social context (like a herd, a horde or a nation) people doing bad thing are less likely to reproduce than people doing good things. Good = has a positive influence on the society, like not stealing, murdering, lying.
You can’t hunt a mammoth if you can’t trust your fellow caveman. So caves without a moral code would not have survived the ice age.

you stated
“As humans are social beings the fittest are those who behave socially. Or good so to speak.”

the term “fittest” when referring to a species, or anything for that matter, infers/implies an ideal. I will give you an example, if i try to take a 9/16 wrench and use it on a 1/4 inch bolt, it does not work, it does not fit, it is not the ideal.

You have a moral measurement here in your statment. Where does this measurement come from? what is the ideal moral behaviour of a human being? You stated there is such thing as “murder” and “stealing”. There is no such thing amongst animals. what is the difference between te human animal and all others? Are not chimps social? do cows not gather together and heard and moo to each other, as whales do?

what gives us a moral measurement?

You directly imply an ideal when referring to “fittest” in regards to human behaviour.

was not Jim Jones social and attractively so, all the way up until the koolaid? Were his intentions not good for those involved? did he not want to take them to his idea of heaven? what is wrong with that? all intentions were good, to him, very good, right? So if he was social, attracted people to him and his ideas, and they all followed, unto death by poisoning, how is this bad? Just another day in the animal kingdom right?

wrong, and you just identified it. it is murder.

what is the difference between murder by humans and the killing of animals by other animals? who gave us some type of “morality”? there is no such thing aomong animals.

in fact, your theory falls on itself. animals kill each other by the hoards, all the time, day and night, far more than any human would ever imagine doing, yet they still flourish. How? according to your summary of “social behaviour” they must work together and not kill each other.
Yet it is the polar opposite with animals.
The only time that extinction begins to take place is when humans ruin the environment or over kill the species and then humans place controls on the hunting of those animals or the environmental protection of them. Left to their own “murderous” devices against each other, animals would still flourish in spite of their behaious, be it anti social or not.

not the same for humans, and not the same behaviour. Humans have the ability to "murder, rape, assault, lie, cheat, steal, etc. terms that are non existent in the animal world.

therefore what makes us different than the animals?

 

[AnAtheist]

the term “fittest” when referring to a species, or anything for that matter, infers/implies an ideal.

That living beings try to procreate is not an ideal in the strictest philosophical meaning of that term, but if you want to call it that way. Suits me.

You have a moral measurement here in your statment. Where does this measurement come from? what is the ideal moral behaviour of a human being?

That measurement has evolved along with us as a species.

was not Jim Jones social and attractively so, all the way up until the koolaid?

Was not Jim Jones some kind of crazy religious geek gathering hundreds of other religous geeks around him?

 

[justinthemartyr]

That living beings try to procreate is not an ideal in the strictest philosophical meaning of that term, but if you want to call it that way. Suits me.

That measurement has evolved along with us as a species.

Was not Jim Jones some kind of crazy religious geek gathering hundreds of other religous geeks around him?

read my post again, i expounded.

please prove that a measurement 'evolved". need proof please. thanks.

You stated that the “fittest” were social.
Jim Jones was very social, very attractive, very EVERYTHING that you stated, yet it contradicts your idea totally.

what about the comet guy? what makes a person more sane or insane? what is the measurement of sanity? is there an ideal? you infer one here.

you are constantly contradictiong your own reasoning process, and when you cannot answer something, you conveniently fall back on the great assumption of the idea that the behaviour somehow 'evolved".

that doesn’t wash here. proof please.

everything i believe is the “normative”

you claim that it isn’t, yet have no proof otherwise.

The normative is what is evident and has always been that way as far as history can see.

Your ideas are not the norm, and are unseen in history, yet you claim they are there somewhere. Where is the proof of your “exception” to the rule, being the “norm” at one time?

when did the exception become the norm?

 

[AnAtheist]

Jim Jones was very social, very attractive, very EVERYTHING that you stated, yet it contradicts your idea totally.

All Jimjonesians are quite dead, aren’t they? They do not procreate any longer, evolution has selected them out. So their society was not “fit” in the long run.

please prove that a measurement 'evolved". need proof please. thanks.

Ok, we agree on that there is this measurement, right? But we have different theories how it came into being. Your theory is that a god set it up, and my theory is that it has evolved because it is an advantage for the survival of our species.
I think the empirical data supports my theory very well, humans are acting in a very efficient way, we have spread all over the earth, have less natural enemies than ever.

 

[Skavau]

ralphinal:

That is relativism.

No. That is reality. Atheism is silent on ethical issues. It does not speak of morality and therefore grouping Atheists together and expecting them to have the same mentality on ethics is exactly the same as grouping violinists together and expecting them to have the same opinion on morality. After all, nothing in being a violinist implies a moral spectrum. Are violinists, therefore relativistic?

Here is another example: I have 1 Hindu, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim. They are all keen golf players. They all of course disagree with each other on moral issues. Are they therefore, moral relativists?

ralphinal:

What is objective? Well, cold blooded murder is always wrong. Adultry is always wrong. Child molestation is always wrong. Why? Because these harm others when they have no chance to defend themselves. Harming someone who cannot defend themselves is always wrong, even if that harm is not bodily.

Sounds fairly reasonable.

What is your point?

 

[Skavau]

justinthemartyr:

Show me direct evidence of Zeus or Thor, and how many people are worshipping them as we speak?

I don’t have any evidence of Zeus and Thor. I don’t need any. You cannot falsify a negative. That was my point.

justinthemartyr:

Are 3/4 of humanity worshipping them?

Nope. But then neither is 75% of humanity Christians.

Your inconsistency (which I think roots from bias) is noted. On the one hand you seem to think the onus is on me to falsify God and that if I cannot, it gives credence to belief in God and yet on the other hand you seem to think that Thor ought to be shown to exist.

Your logic again baffles me.

justinthemartyr:

where is the historical record of their actual existence as we have thorough evidence of Jesus crist and his preannounced prophecies which he fulfilled over 350 of in about 33 years? His preannouncement is the only evidence I need, no one else preannounced their entire life,death, resurrection and ascension into heaven over 1000 years before it occurred. I see no evidence of your claims whatsoever.

Precisely.

And there goes your own premises. What you cite above is what you see as positive evidence for God. Therefore, you believe in God because you think there is evidence for God. You do not believe in God because it cannot be falsified.

justinthemartyr:

As far as nature, the natural law is inelligent design in itself. name me one thing in nature that is not intelligently designed? I can’t think of one.

Your argument presumes its own premises and is therefore committing the formal fallacy of begging the question. If God does not exist, then nothing is intelligently designed.

We are the only creature on earth that can acknowledge God and worship God, and get very good results doing so. This is the main difference between human beings and animals. We have reign over the whole earth and everything in it(life). This is not merely some scriptural quote, it is a fact which holds to the biblical quote.

A lot of the world will disagree with you there.

justinthemartyr:

YES justice IS a human term, not practiced by animals without the eternal soul with morality God gave us. That is the point.

Either God gave it to us or we coined it ourselves.

justinthemartyr:

Name for me a basic law, which at it’s root is not based on the laws of God. I am not talking about the laws which have been changed since by humans to disregard human life, such as Roe vs Wade.

This is your claim not mine. Show me laws that are based entirely from Christianity and exist based entirely from Christianity.
justintemartyr:

Yes, my experience does have a lot to do with what is actually true. My experience is not based on feeling, on drugs, on anything but the fact that the only thing that changed in my actions and life, is that I acknowledged Jesus Christ, the preannounced messiah, to be my Lord and Saviour, and the overwhleming desire to drink, drug, steal and be homosexual since a very young age, disappeared. This is found to be the case for multiple billions of people over the ages, they acknowledge god and ask him into their lives to cooperate with His will, and their lives change dramatically from within.

And Muslims will say the exact same thing. Your experiences are not objective evidence, they are only indicative of your own sincerity and why you believe what you believe.

 

[AnAtheist]

Show me direct evidence of Zeus or Thor, and how many people are worshipping them as we speak?

I know several people who worship Thor.
But anyway, since when is the sheer number of believers an indicator of truth? Does that mean around 34 A.D. when about 20 people believed in Christ and hundred-thousands in Zeus, belief in Zeus was more valid than Christianity?

 

[justinthemartyr]

All Jimjonesians are quite dead, aren’t they? They do not procreate any longer, evolution has selected them out. So their society was not “fit” in the long run.

Ok, we agree on that there is this measurement, right? But we have different theories how it came into being. Your theory is that a god set it up, and my theory is that it has evolved because it is an advantage for the survival of our species.
I think the empirical data supports my theory very well, humans are acting in a very efficient way, we have spread all over the earth, have less natural enemies than ever.

Lets go back to your statement, of which you have not explained nor answered anything that I have offered.

you used the term “fittest” in regards to humans and equated that with “good”.

Mother Teresa did not procreate, yet she did more “good” with no expectation of return than most cities of people will do in their entire lives. Therefore your idea of procreation=good, is not valid in all circumstances.

You still must explain how being the "fittest’ does not point to an “ideal” and where/whom that ideal comes from.

as far as evolution, that is all assumption, and there is no proof whatever for behaviour 'evolving".

 

[AnAtheist]

as far as evolution, that is all assumption, and there is no proof whatever for behaviour 'evolving".

I suggest you first learn the difference between an assumption and a scientific theory and how theories are proven before I explain anything you won’t believe anyway.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I used to believe many assumptions concerning evolution, and was even a self proclaimed athiest. Please do not take my inventory.

I have given you examples and questions which you have all but ignored because you cannot answer them.

You stated that procreation in a person is what makes them “fit” or “good”, yet there are countless examples which were not even married and did far more “good” than anyone I know who is married and having children. That blows your idea out of the water.
Sure, procreation in marriage is good, very good, and the intended place to have children, but it is not the measure by which a person’s “goodness” or “fittness” is measured. you are unable to explain, or even look deep enough to realise what makes a person “fit” and therefore closer to the “ideal”
in which humans were originally created.

You see, humans have character defects, as you have stated, they “murder” and “lie” as you stated. These are evident character defects in the character of the human being. you state that the measurements of these behaviours somehow “evolved” over time. yet you have not one single bit of prrof for your thought son this. A nice thought, but no proof whatever for your thinking.

It seems the only thing that really can reverse this state of defected character(sin nature) is growing closer to the one who created us and growing closer to the ideal. this is proven again and again and again in ALL of recorded history. There is a plethera of factual instances where this ccurs all the time, from the earlliest of recorded history.

Your theory is but an illusion with no results, no evidence, and much wishful thinking. it does not take a scientist to know these things. i have two good friends who are doctors of science, very very intelligent people. they believe in God, they worship God and are happy helpful people in service to god and others inside their careers and outside.

They are confirmation that no matter how smart you think you are, God always has something bigger and better in mind, and that is wisdom. The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. God’s infinite wisdom is far greater and is the one thing which you will never gain through gnosis. It is only through the epi-gnosis which you will experience the love of God and the wisdom of God.

peace to you, Justin

 

[Skavau]

justinthemartyr:

I used to believe many assumptions concerning evolution, and was even a self proclaimed athiest. Please do not take my inventory.

What assumptions concerning evolution?

Moreover, what has evolution got to do with Atheism? It has nothing to do with either Theism or Atheism.

 

[justinthemartyr]

“behavior evolving” ?

that is the statement I am referring to. This is a direct reference to evolution. It is claimed in the post as 'scientific theory".

theories are guesses, not facts. same as when someone in the realms of science look at fossils and then try to tell us how the animal looked outwardly, how they behaved etc, when they actually have no clue, let alone naming the thing as if that were the name of it.

Also, no different than those claiming carbon dating that thought the gall stones from a cow were a dinosaur egg, and even dated the thing incorrectly by about 1 million years. Is this the type of scientific theory you are speaking of?

or would it be the non existence of any link between an ape or monkey of any kind and a human being?

 

[Skavau]

justinthemartyr:

that is the statement I am referring to. This is a direct reference to evolution. It is claimed in the post as 'scientific theory".

You don’t know how scientists use the word ‘theory’, do you? It means a lot more than ‘guess’.

 

[justinthemartyr]

a self proclaimed “educated” guess. still a guess, no real evidence, just summations from a human fallible mind trying to explain what already was created.

quite entertaining.

here it is:
a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

 

[justinthemartyr]

in fact, scientists cannot even understand the human body fully, let alone how the universe and everything in it came to be. They do not even remotely know the age of the universe, nor how the matter came into existence.

 

[Skavau]

in fact, scientists cannot even understand the human body fully, let alone how the universe and everything in it came to be. They do not even remotely know the age of the universe, nor how the matter came into existence.

Correct.

So?

 

[AnAtheist]

Correct.

So?

No, not correct. We do remotely know the age of the universe and how matter came in to existence.

Read for example:
Guth, Alan, “The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins”. 1998