(August 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm)genkaus Wrote: So its a good thing that people are not mindless.

Yes it is. The reason we have our minds isn't mindless either. "...because IF they are equally autonomous" it rides on if doesn't it. Why are you imposing your morality on others?

What I don't understand is your inconsistency with R. Dawkins.


(A debate between 2 evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

(August 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm)elunico13 Wrote: (A debate between 2 evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

So, what's the problem with what Dawkins said?

He's entirely correct, science deniers have to get over the fact that evolution (an observed natural process) contradicts their pet creation myths.

But the fact is, our best impulses do seem to have a basis in nature.

I think Elunico has read that to mean that evolution -is- a moral vacuum, that Dawkin's response "That's just tough" etc was referring to the moral vacuum we find ourselves in.

Kind of amusing.....lol.

Try this Elunico

-Some people don't accept [insert random science here] because it contradicts ith their perspective of [insert whispy shit here]-

-That's just tough....for their perspectives-

(August 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm)elunico13 Wrote: And here we are again with the fallacy of begging the question. Still no reason given for the importance of people's autonomy or rights being superior over any other group. Why are we obligated by you to give equal sanction to everyone's autonomy?

It is very inconsistent of you to be against anyone's decision for moral behavior, such as James Holmes. If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do. Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda. Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?

I think I see where you're getting.... either it's all pre-destined physics, or... god gave us free will.

My take is: all pre-destined physics. But the physics involved is soooo complex, that you can see it as free will..... my guess is that you end up making the decision you have to make from all the physical processes that occur in your brain. And you make the decision that your brain makes (duh!)

The decision making process is entirely based on a) genetics and b) previous experience/knowledge.
Genetics can't be tweaked in any way... If you're born a fool you're a fool forever! These are the tools Nature gives you to work with.
Experience is in constant change, so, from our point of view, it's completely .... random?...naaahhhh.... unpredictable.... and we like to call it "conscious".

(August 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Yes it is. The reason we have our minds isn't mindless either. "...because IF they are equally autonomous" it rides on if doesn't it. Why are you imposing your morality on others?

Unless you have any evidence to show that two human beings with same rights are not equally autonomous, the question has already been answered.

(August 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm)elunico13 Wrote: What I don't understand is your inconsistency with R. Dawkins.

(A debate between 2 evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

What are you blabbering about?

Determinism is a separate issue, independent of the existence of a god anyway.

It's possible God exists and we have no free will (theistic determinism)
It's possible God doesn't exist and we have no free will (atheistic determinism)
It's possible God exists and we have free will (theistic free will)
It's possible God doesn't exist and we have free will (atheistic free will)

---

Now back to the OP, here are three more uploads in the series...

Quote:It's possible God exists and we have no free will (theistic determinism)
It's possible God doesn't exist and we have no free will (atheistic determinism)
It's possible God exists and we have free will (theistic free will)
It's possible God doesn't exist and we have free will (atheistic free will)

But what's probable is that god is just a pile of made up dogshit.

Hey Deist, ya just reposted the vids that ya already submitted. I think you got the wrong links there. XD

(August 18, 2012 at 7:05 pm)genkaus Wrote: Unless you have any evidence to show that two human beings with same rights are not equally autonomous, the question has already been answered.

Well that will be easy since people use evolution to justify inequality.

Stephen J. Gould, in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation [the evolutionary theory which postulates that a developing embryo in its mother’s womb goes through evolutionary stages, such as the fish stage, etc., until it becomes human] provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behavior in lower races” (brackets mine). Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution.

I also want to add:
You're still assuming rights are important to justify rights are important.

Also, evolution doesn't explain why we have autonomy. Being evolved from an accident would mean any actions such as murder, rape, pedophilia would just be the result of the same accident. The pedophile can then get away with "I was born like this" if you disagree then you deny what evolution caused him to do.

It's still you personal moral opinion over someone else.

elunico13 Wrote:Also, evolution doesn't explain why we have autonomy. Being evolved from an accident would mean any actions such as murder, rape, pedophilia would just be the result of the same accident. The pedophile can then get away with "I was born like this" if you disagree then you deny what evolution caused him to do.

Why do you think that people that accept evolution must accept everything that is a result of evolution as being morally justified?