@fff: I'd prefer you'd continue with the discussion as is. Here you go:

(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.

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 12:00 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

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

No, learning not to touch a hot stove for fear of the physical repercussions is not the same as learning based on peer observations. Can you try again?

Quote:I'm not going to spell it out for you...I thought my reply was already clear enough.

OK. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking clarifying questions. If you're not going to spell it out, I'll say outright that you're forcing a distinction between two apparently learned behaviors without support for the distinction.

Quote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing at this point? If so, then this discussion between us will end very shortly.

Again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to explain the distinction - something which you now seem unwilling or unable to do.

(August 10, 2013 at 6:17 am)John V Wrote: @fff: I'd prefer you'd continue with the discussion as is. Here you go:
Again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to explain the distinction - something which you now seem unwilling or unable to do.

@John V,

Given that you are unwilling to state your beliefs plainly, I do not intend to continue this conversation as is. As I stated (honestly), I do not know what your beliefs are, and as such, I would only be arguing from ignorance. Unlike theists (apparently including you), I do not wish to have a discussion without having complete and accurate information. Your unwillingness to accept my sincerity speaks volumes about your rigid inflexibility; a perfect example of your (god), who need not answer to anyone. Please now feel free to lord yourself over an honest man who is earnestly seeking the truth. I hope the best for you, honestly, and I hope that one day, if you are willing to meet someone where they are, instead of where you'd like to place them, that you will begin to learn, and that you will ditch your imaginary friend in the sky.

(August 10, 2013 at 9:39 am)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: @John V,

Given that you are unwilling to state your beliefs plainly, I do not intend to continue this conversation as is. As I stated (honestly), I do not know what your beliefs are, and as such, I would only be arguing from ignorance. Unlike theists (apparently including you), I do not wish to have a discussion without having complete and accurate information. Your unwillingness to accept my sincerity speaks volumes about your rigid inflexibility; a perfect example of your (god), who need not answer to anyone. Please now feel free to lord yourself over an honest man who is earnestly seeking the truth. I hope the best for you, honestly, and I hope that one day, if you are willing to meet someone where they are, instead of where you'd like to place them, that you will begin to learn, and that you will ditch your imaginary friend in the sky.

You're dodging questions you can't answer, plain and simple. The discussion stands on its own. You don't need a detailed profile of me to continue it, and you didn't request such while you thought you had the upper hand.

(August 9, 2013 at 3:43 pm)Locke Wrote: Sorry, I'm not trying to come across that way

EDIT: Tbh I don't know what sounds condescending about it >.<

Thank you for acknowledging that we're not ALL uneducated.

Did that help?

(August 10, 2013 at 6:17 am)John V Wrote: Again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to explain the distinction - something which you now seem unwilling or unable to do.

You mean the distinction between something that's learned by rote memorization and something that's learned inherently? You didn't notice that distinction I was making? From your earlier posts, you seemed to believe that they were one and the same.

*Looks back over the post*

It does appear as if I didn't qualify the actual word "Learned" with any modifier to show that it was indeed a more sit-down-listen-to-me-teach you kind of learning that I was referring to. I hope this clears it up.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:07 pm)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.

It's quite a stretch to get 'told they are evil' from 'drives off thieves'. It clearly benefits the group to be intolerant of stealing, to get angry about it, similar to the feeling we get when someone cuts in front of us or gets a bigger share of cake than we do. The thieving gorilla isn't condemned for being evil, they're just on their own because they're a liability to the group.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:07 pm)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?

Evolution has given us the ability to form all kinds of ideologies, governments, philosophies, and religions; which often reflect our natural social instincts, but also reflect our experiences, history, imaginations, observations, and prejudices. They are our creations and there's no rational reason why we shouldn't judge them on their own merits and flaws.

Even if religion were a direct product of evolution, that wouldn't make it a good thing, unless you consider reproductive success to be the only measure of what is good. There's a fallacy named after claiming something is a moral good because it's natural.

(August 10, 2013 at 10:27 am)John V Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 9:39 am)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: @John V,

Given that you are unwilling to state your beliefs plainly, I do not intend to continue this conversation as is. As I stated (honestly), I do not know what your beliefs are, and as such, I would only be arguing from ignorance. Unlike theists (apparently including you), I do not wish to have a discussion without having complete and accurate information. Your unwillingness to accept my sincerity speaks volumes about your rigid inflexibility; a perfect example of your (god), who need not answer to anyone. Please now feel free to lord yourself over an honest man who is earnestly seeking the truth. I hope the best for you, honestly, and I hope that one day, if you are willing to meet someone where they are, instead of where you'd like to place them, that you will begin to learn, and that you will ditch your imaginary friend in the sky.

You're dodging questions you can't answer, plain and simple. The discussion stands on its own. You don't need a detailed profile of me to continue it, and you didn't request such while you thought you had the upper hand.

Mr. Superiority Complex wins in his own mind Now if you don't mind I'm going to church on a Saturday.
I'm a Seventh Day Spaghetti Monsterist.

(August 10, 2013 at 11:43 am)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Mr. Superiority Complex wins in his own mind

No, when you stop the discussion and try to start a completely new one, refusing to address my last post on the old, the victory isn't just in my mind.

(August 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm)John V Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 11:43 am)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Mr. Superiority Complex wins in his own mind

No, when you stop the discussion and try to start a completely new one, refusing to address my last post on the old, the victory isn't just in my mind.

CALLED IT! It's a competition for you

(August 10, 2013 at 11:24 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's quite a stretch to get 'told they are evil' from 'drives off thieves'.

It's not at all a stretch to get it from "condemned."

Quote:It clearly benefits the group to be intolerant of stealing, to get angry about it, similar to the feeling we get when someone cuts in front of us or gets a bigger share of cake than we do. The thieving gorilla isn't condemned for being evil, they're just on their own because they're a liability to the group.

He said they're condemned, you say they aren't. Go figure.

Quote:Evolution has given us the ability to form all kinds of ideologies, governments, philosophies, and religions; which often reflect our natural social instincts, but also reflect our experiences, history, imaginations, observations, and prejudices. They are our creations and there's no rational reason why we shouldn't judge them on their own merits and flaws.

What criteria determine whether a behavior is natural v. our creations? If we are natural, are not our creations natural? Do we know that gorillas' behaviors aren't influenced by experiences, imaginations, etc?

Quote:Even if religion were a direct product of evolution, that wouldn't make it a good thing, unless you consider reproductive success to be the only measure of what is good. There's a fallacy named after claiming something is a moral good because it's natural.

So you would take exception to the statement, "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" - right?