(August 8, 2013 at 4:07 pm)John V Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Are you aware that in societies of gorillas in the wild, that if one member of the society steals something from another member or group, that they are kicked out (condemned)? Also, in that same society, if a mother gorilla neglects or abuses her child (gorilla) that the society will adopt the baby, and will punish the bad mother.

I ask you; where did they learn this justice system? Do they have a holy book somewhere we don't know about? No. They, to quote your book, "By nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness."

TA DA! There you have it. We have developed these sets of 'laws' naturally. We humans, like other animals, just get it, and do not need to be told that we are evil for being natural.

Actually you just said that they do need to be told that they are evil for being natural. They condemn the thief, as you say yourself.

Quote:No. My tale portrays all people as wretched without your (christ's) 'salvation', which is what the bibble (dribble) teaches.
That is the blindness I am speaking of; you clearly just don't see it. Also, in the parable, the homeless guy is a theist (christisn), and he's representative of most I know or have met. They (christians) love to get in people's faces and condemn them. Again, I don't subscribe to the irrational fears that you have sold your (soul) to purchase.

In the parable, the Christian would accept the offer.

Quote:Thanks for the applause, though unlike theists, atheists don't do things to gain some ambiguous approval.

Oh please, there's kudos, reputation, annual awards - the atheists here love to give and receive approval. People in general like praise, and get upset if it isn't forthcoming when they think it's due.

---

Quote:Natural selection has caused our species (humans) to thrive because of natural 'laws' that developed over millions of years; 'laws' that naturally govern the species, and not some god doing the law making (and condemning once those laws are broken).

Forgot to mention that, if there is no god, then the natural laws selected by evolution which enable our species to thrive include religious laws. So, what's your beef? You think ya know better than millions of years of evolution?

Also, if God does exist then any example in nature could be designed by Him to teach us something of His nature, or how He works.. But as a disclaimer I wanna say this is getting into a battle of logic, which is never conclusive, as its largely theoretical and often draws unproven conclusions from observations.

I'm having trouble using the forum's quotation format I apologize for this muddy reply. Hopefully you'll be able to understand this response.

John V wrote
‘Actually you just said that they do need to be told that they are evil for being natural. They condemn the thief, as you say yourself.’
__________________________________________________________

Who told the gorillas doing the condemning that they should do so?
__________________________________________________________

John V wrote
‘In the parable, the Christian would accept the offer.’
__________________________________________________________

And yet he responded as any atheist would have.
__________________________________________________________

John V wrote
‘Oh please, there's kudos, reputation, annual awards - the atheists here love to give and receive approval. People in general like praise, and get upset if it isn't forthcoming when they think it's due.’
__________________________________________________________

Oh really? I hadn’t noticed. Oh lookie, I’m popular….. BIG DEAL.
__________________________________________________________

John V wrote
‘Forgot to mention that, if there is no god, then the natural laws selected by evolution which enable our species to thrive include religious laws. So, what's your beef? You think ya know better than millions of years of evolution?’
__________________________________________________________

Evidence please.

(August 8, 2013 at 3:20 pm)Locke Wrote: I really think there are too many voices and unresearched opinions here to have an intelligible discussion...

"Unresearched"? "Opinions"? Da fuk?

(August 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 3:20 pm)Locke Wrote: I really think there are too many voices and unresearched opinions here to have an intelligible discussion...

"Unresearched"? "Opinions"? Da fuk?

HAHA....
I could be wrong, but I think 'Locke' meant opinions that are more intellectually refined based upon properly researched data being applied to said opinions; though it does come across as oxymoronic.

That's why I was worried.

I'm still unconvinced.

(August 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Who told the gorillas doing the condemning that they should do so?

No one. For purposes of this part of the discussion, we’re both assuming these behaviors developed through evolutionary processes.

Quote:And yet he responded as any atheist would have.

Yes, that’s why I referred to him as representing atheists. You muddied up the parable by saying it was based on a real-life Christian, then having him behave as any atheist would have.

Quote:Oh really? I hadn’t noticed. Oh lookie, I’m popular….. BIG DEAL.

Are you judging the people for whom popularity is a big deal? If so, on what basis? Isn’t the desire for popularity a result of evolutionary processes to you? Why do you fault people for being natural?

Quote:Evidence please.

The same evidence that you have that our secular rules developed through evolutionary processes.

(August 9, 2013 at 8:45 am)John V Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Who told the gorillas doing the condemning that they should do so?

No one. For purposes of this part of the discussion, we’re both assuming these behaviors developed through evolutionary processes.

Looking down on someone when he or she does something inappropriate is a result of social evolution and these reactions are based on peer observations, but when a person gets specific with their condemnation, ie. telling someone that the inappropriate action is actually something called a sin, that sin is rebellion against some sort of deity, and that this sin will get them thrown into a place in hell, then this is a very learned action and it seems out of place to be put in the same category as community-understood social misconduct.

(August 9, 2013 at 10:10 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Looking down on someone when he or she does something inappropriate is a result of social evolution and these reactions are based on peer observations,

Can you explain this further? What exactly is social evolution, and why don't you consider actions "based on peer observations" to be learned?

(August 9, 2013 at 11:53 am)John V Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 10:10 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Looking down on someone when he or she does something inappropriate is a result of social evolution and these reactions are based on peer observations,

Can you explain this further? What exactly is social evolution, and why don't you consider actions "based on peer observations" to be learned?

It's essentially the difference between a child that learns not to touch a hot stove for fear of the physical repercussion and a child that sits in a classroom to learn the rules of math and English grammar. I'm not going to spell it out for you...I thought my reply was already clear enough. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing at this point? If so, then this discussion between us will end very shortly.