(January 23, 2017 at 4:54 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Wait, Thumpo= Thump?

So he can't even spell now. Your name doesn't even contain an "o"

And who the fuck is Herbet Spencer?

That's probably how he spells my name

Meh, nicknames are nicknames, and often contain extrinsic letters ("Jack" for "John", etc).

(January 23, 2017 at 4:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 4:44 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Social Darwinism does not follow logically from Darwinism.

Tell that to Herbert Spencer, Thumpo, and your fellow atheists the next time they try to tell you that certain virtues promote group selection.

The bold text just demonstrates my point. OH THE IRONY.

Certain virtues promoting group selection does not entail Social Darwinism. Thanks for proving my point about your making non-sequiturs.

---

(January 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 4:54 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Wait, Thumpo= Thump?

So he can't even spell now. Your name doesn't even contain an "o"

And who the fuck is Herbet Spencer?

That's probably how he spells my name

Meh, nicknames are nicknames, and often contain extrinsic letters ("Jack" for "John", etc).

True, true.

Admittedly I was being a douche.

When is Neo gonna admit it?

Herbert Spencer asserted that one comes from the other he was never able to prove it. As for  enlighten self interest leading to might makes right oh the irony of that statement. As for morality being objective by all means demonstrate this. As for atheists being able to justify concepts like good neither can you. As for rape the benefits are curtailed by the damage dine  and quoting dwakins is just sad.

Neo, do I really need to make a thread saying "Guess what, not all atheists are Herbert Spencer" and then whine about hospitals and get my history all wrong?

(January 23, 2017 at 5:17 pm)Orochi Wrote: Herbert Spencer asserted that one comes from the other he was never able to prove it. As for  enlighten self interest leading to might makes right oh the irony of that statement. As for morality being objective by all means demonstrate this. As for atheists being able to justify concepts like good neither can you. As for rape the benefits are curtailed by the damage dine  and quoting dwakins is just sad.

Of course though you would quote genetic determinists  as if they represent atheism or even evolutionary biology to bad for they don't so your attempt at slander has failed here

(January 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: Equality would be an aspiration rather than a principle.

For you maybe. Let's ask Genghis Khan how he feels about equality.

(January 23, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: Autonomy; my rights end when someone else's are infringed? Surely that one should be self explanatory.

The rights of the women he raped didn't seem to prevent 1 in 200 people from being descended from him. Sounds like his offspring did better than everyone elses', which is kinda how evolution works.

That rather proves the point about equality being an aspiration rather than the human condition...

(January 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Let's say you are right. How can you say that humility and sacrifice are good without appealing to the unproven notion that human life has value.

Given that the claim is regarding an abstraction -- values -- rather than the concrete -- asking for evidence of it seems unreasonably obtuse; and we haven't even broached the notion that values are subjective.

My apologies for two things: 1) incorrectly abbreviating you username and 2) misinterpreting your text as favoring social Darwinism. I was careless on both accounts.

Over the course of this thread I have mentioned a wide variety of things whose ontological status(es?) are the subject of scholarly debate, e.g. time, numbers, values, possibilities, intentionality, minds, etc. To the extent to which they do or do not exist they fall into categories of being unlike that of physical objects. Thus the means by which beliefs about those kinds of things are justified differ from the means by which someone would justify beliefs about physical objects. You can assert that numbers are abstractions but I can point to modern philosophers, like Godel, that would beg to differ. It’s really a very simple concept and I don’t understand why it remains of elusive to some. Beliefs about different kinds of things require different kinds of justification.

Now the claim you were making earlier, if I am not misreading you again, is that altruistic instincts like humility, sacrifice, mutual respect, and empathy enhance the fitness of the species. And according to you that makes them good.

Unfortunately evolutionary science has proven decisively that this is simply not the case. One in 200 men, approximately 17 million, are directly descended from a brutal killer and serial rapist, Genghis Khan. Apparently the instincts of lust and conquest are those that most enhance fitness, which in evolutionary terms means leaving lots and lots of offspring. If morality is defined as fitness, then Genghis Khan was the greatest saint in human history.

Different breeding strategies; 
Large number of offspring with little or no input after conception = high mortality rate, and thus a high failure rate.
Small number of offspring with prolonged investment = higher success rate and a better overall strategy for the species as a whole.

Another way of looking at it would be do you try to build your wealth through work and training, or do you stick it all on the lottery?

(January 23, 2017 at 7:21 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: Different breeding strategies; 
Large number of offspring with little or no input after conception = high mortality rate, and thus a high failure rate.
Small number of offspring with prolonged investment = higher success rate and a better overall strategy for the species as a whole.

Another way of looking at it would be do you try to build your wealth through work and training, or do you stick it all on the lottery?

Agreed there is nothing rape accomplishes that not rape can

Oh and if god needed to repopulate the earth fast would rape then be okay

Also there is the fact of the nature of primates the makes former difficult

Lastly just because does X does not mean we should do X it simply means things do X not that X cannot be accomplished another way

---

(January 23, 2017 at 7:21 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: Different breeding strategies; 
Large number of offspring with little or no input after conception = high mortality rate, and thus a high failure rate.
Small number of offspring with prolonged investment = higher success rate and a better overall strategy for the species as a whole.

Another way of looking at it would be do you try to build your wealth through work and training, or do you stick it all on the lottery?

Indeed both can work but it's clear the more intelligent the species the more they tend toward smaller numbers of offspring but more investment in teaching said offspring

(January 23, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 23, 2017 at 3:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's some ludicrously obvious bullshit right there.

He's  right though. On what basis do we claim that a particular act is objectively good?

Bolding mine.

We don't, we understand that morality is a subjective and fluid notion, and we behave with that in mind. Everybody does if they deigned to think about it. But monotheistic religions have seen an angle to use in pretending that morality is an absolute and unchanging value*, because it gives them a gap where they can insert their god, even though the gape doesn't exist in reality.

An example would be the modern idea of "presumption of innocence", an idea which is actually far more ancient than most think, having its earliest known expression in the Law Code of Hammurabi. But it fell out of favour around the time of the Persian empire and has only been readopted in modern times. At all times the attitude to the accused in a court of law was considered moral and just. Human morality went backwards in this case before rediscovering an earlier peak, readopting it and building on it (albeit imperfectly).

*As an aside polytheistic religions have a far better understanding of morality, allowing it to be subjective and fluid, mainly because their gods are allowed to be bastards, and are allowd to be evil. When monotheistc gods are depicted with the same attitudes, they either are depicted as goodness or a righteous punishment of the wicked.