"In this case, the behavior getting selected for would have been something like "protect your group," as in our case, doing that often leads to better survival. It's the core of a group society, anyway. But there's no discernment there, no actual will ensuring that that behavior works to the survival of the individual organism. The line is still "protect the group," which sometimes comes up against our survival instincts and wins out."

Which would also handily explain the behaviour of the dolphins. I'd only argue with it being an error in the first-place. Survival of the individual in evolutionary theory is not the issue - its survival of the species as far as it can and beyond that of life itself.

In other words - the losses of a few overly altruistic members of our species is survivable by the species itself. In fact - it is enhanced by it if one sacrifices itself for many.

Horribly Jesus like that last bit - but I am talking about life and death real situations - not imaginary Gods.

Whenever we talk in terms of evolution, we are referring back to the times when we were just mindless beasts with no conscious thought and no mind. We can act against what evolution has programmed into us because we control our bodies consciously and are capable of critically analyzing and evaluating a situation in detail. Along with what Esquilax said, that is the reason the soldier jumped on the grenade. Any other animal would have run away on instinct (if they could comprehend what a grenade was) but he didn't because he has a complex mind which overid his instincts

"Any other animal would have run away on instinct (if they could comprehend what a grenade was) but he didn't because he has a complex mind which overid his instincts"

With the possible exception of the Dolphin?

Many examples throughout history of Dolphins risking their lives to save humans - that is cross species altruism - and probably beyond us.

Therefore Dolphins are more moral than we are.
Therefore Dolphins must be God's chosen species.
All hail the Dolphin God.

Am I reading too much religious bullshit or what?

(October 16, 2013 at 8:23 pm)ronedee Wrote: ...for an Atheist that is?

As 'atheists' aren't a homologous group, it depends entirely on the atheist in question. As you've seen from the posts, there are quite a number of views out there. I'm yet to see one from the nihilistic perspective but I'm sure it's on the way!

Generally, I find that people want to get along, irrespective of their religious beliefs (I'm in the UK). Consequently those people agree generally on many rules of behaviour which stem from socialised empathy.

Quote:Back to the subject at hand! Given the natural cynicism and nastiness of Atheists [here] in general... is there any reason to live a "Moral" life?

Atheists are neither naturally cynical nor nasty. This simply indicates that your main purpose in this thread is to misrepresent or create a negative stereotype of 'atheists'.

Quote:"Moral", in terms of [Good, Honest] deemed by traditions through time. Maybe to include a few slightly general commandments: Lies, stealing, adultery, etc.

Given that you believe in 'god-given' morality, that's a very ambiguous definition. But now I think about it, god's not always very clear on what he considers moral so I guess some ambiguity is to be expected.

Curious isn't it: it almost seems like god's morality is... well, subjective.

Quote:I mean... if there is no one or nothing to [say you are wrong, but you] about; a little swing w/ your buddies wife, or that $10 the acne faced kid gave you extra w/ your change at the Walmart; or telling your wife you were out w/ your buddy instead of his wife... How do you keep it in check? Or do you?

[insert Ivy's comments here]

Quote:Yeah, yeah....I know you would say that Christians are doing the same thing....And they are! But, they do have a conviction in the Lord Jesus. and they know that they will answer to their words and deeds.

...and yet that makes little/no difference to the christians who commit crimes. It's almost as if punitive justice systems don't work as much of a deterrent. You don't think that god's 'perfect' justice might be a little... well, faulty?

Quote:What do you have to answer to? Is there a point to living any kind of "honest" life?

Yes. In fact, there are so many that I don't have time right now to list them all.

Quote:As an observation as a Christian... Your words are pretty mean spirited to any religious.

Sorry, which words? And who said them? Is this 'you' misgeneralising atheists as a homologous group again?

Quote: And I've witnessed a lot of hate here. Maybe you feel you have that right? But also people are individuals, and deserve at least to be heard for their ideas, and concepts relating to just about anything.... religious or otherwise.

And I've witnessed some soil. It made me do a dance. What's your point? You've just posted your comments without interruption or censorship so any claims of persecution must be false.

Quote:Anyway... what do you as an atheists feel is your moral compass. And what is the gauge set at? Honesty in general... where is the line drawn, and how?

Personally, the 'golden rule' is an important factor as are other generalisations regarding enhancement of well-being but I've experienced so many exceptions as to understand that morality must, by necessity, be contextual. Since catholic doctrine includes much interpretation of god's morality, your church demonstrates the same understanding.

(October 17, 2013 at 12:40 am)ronedee Wrote: And interestingly enough, society (or pack) seems to form "reactions" to actions perpetrated! So, if society broken down (total chaos) then for many of you, so would your moral compass.

That seems to be the case for many people when society breaks down- survival instincts often trump learned moral codes. Would mine? I don't know. I am sure I'm not going to rape and murder because those things are genuinely repellent to me. Would I steal? If I was hungry enough, sure. Would I fail to help others in need? Probably, if my own existence was hanging by a thread.

Quote: That's probably true for a lot of Christians too! But when we (Christians) are held to a higher source, society is not our standard to live by.

But it is. You either abide by the rules of society, or suffer the consequences. For instance, sects of Christian Scientists that allow their children to die from lack of medical care are certainly abiding by their religious code, but are breaking societal moral rules. The Old and New Testaments clearly found slavery to be a normal fact of life and discussed proper treatment of slaves, but you probably (hopefully) find that morally repellent.

For anyone interested, an interesting paper on neurobiology and morality.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:11 am)max-greece Wrote: "In this case, the behavior getting selected for would have been something like "protect your group,"

Your group is your family/genetic relatives and people who are useful to your own survival not your species as a whole. If you could escape from a terrorist attack on a shopping mall by allowing some children to be shot instead of yourself then that's the thing you ought to do if you're following through on the evolutionary logic. Unless they're your children then its makes sense to sacrifice yourself to allow for the all important continuation of your own genes the only potentially immortal part of you. Self destructive behavior if genetically based ought to have been weeded out of the human population millions of years ago unless you want to claim doesn't work the way we believe it's meant to work?

Quote:Which would also handily explain the behaviour of the dolphins. I'd only argue with it being an error in the first-place. Survival of the individual in evolutionary theory is not the issue - its survival of the species as far as it can and beyond that of life itself.

It's the survival of the individual and their genes within the species not the species as a whole. Even Richard Dawkin's would disagree with you if that's what you're saying. A starving child in Africa does not negatively impact your own survival or the survival of our species in any way. If you wanted to you could say the weak are being weeded out and the stronger more resourceful populations thrive. I'm not saying that but you may as well if you don't believe God exists.

Quote:Horribly Jesus like that last bit - but I am talking about life and death real situations - not imaginary Gods.

I'm explaining the reality of what the situation is if God doesn't exist and morality/altruism is merely what you claim it to be.

(October 17, 2013 at 1:13 am)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Well, I guess I could have jacked his car and stolen his groceries and wallet.
http://atheistforums.org/post-526086.html#pid526086

There is your line poe; swallow it whole.

What's with the "poe" kick? Running out of insults?

And that was your regugitated line/lie!

I believe your second scenario more readily.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:59 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Your group is your family/genetic relatives and people who are useful to your own survival not your species as a whole.

Except that evolution isn't a mind that can recognize familial groups, and traditionally the older tribal groups that formed these behaviors were more than just the single family.

Quote:Self destructive behavior if genetically based ought to have been weeded out of the human population millions of years ago unless you want to claim doesn't work the way we believe it's meant to work?

Consider the possibility that you don't understand how it's meant to work. You wouldn't be the first christian with an inadequate grasp of evolution.

Quote:It's the survival of the individual and their genes within the species not the species as a whole.

The individual members of a species all fall under the umbrella of their species. I shouldn't have to explain this, but species that die out, die out. It doesn't matter if you're the longest surviving member, from an evolutionary standpoint, if you're the last one, and therefore have no gene pool to add to.

Quote: A starving child in Africa does not negatively impact your own survival or the survival of our species in any way.

Individually no, but too many of them begins to shrink the gene pool in a process which has as its main driving force genetic diversity. You don't have to be Dawkins to see how that negatively impacts us all enough to want to do something about.

Quote: If you wanted to you could say the weak are being weeded out and the stronger more resourceful populations thrive. I'm not saying that but you may as well if you don't believe God exists.

Except that natural selection and survival of the fittest aren't the same thing, the latter isn't exactly a selection criteria in the broadest sense, and bringing it up the way you just did confirms that you don't really understand evolution.

Quote:I'm explaining the reality of what the situation is if God doesn't exist and morality/altruism is merely what you claim it to be.

And, like most christians that try that, you're doing it incorrectly. Why do you guys never actually take on board what's being said back to you?

(October 17, 2013 at 9:59 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Self destructive behavior if genetically based ought to have been weeded out of the human population millions of years ago unless you want to claim doesn't work the way we believe it's meant to work?

This is true, but simplistic. New alleles, and unexpected interactions of genes with a cultural evolution that outpaces biological evolution, makes this more complex. For instance, there are clearly genetics involved in alcoholism. Why weren't these weeded out long before now? I bet you can come up with a reasonable hypothesis for this.

Quote:It's the survival of the individual and their genes within the species not the species as a whole. Even Richard Dawkin's would disagree with you if that's what you're saying.

Again, true but simplistic. Since you have a good grasp of the basics, you should extend that by catching up on evolutionary theory (and I do not mean that in a patronizing manner). Altruistic behavior is observed to be genetic even in bacteria, although your point about immediate kin groups is a good one. It tends to hold in times of severe crisis, but it's clear that our cultural wealth can help us extend our ideas of who we ought to help. We do care about starving children in Africa, and culturally and individually many people support helping them- because we can afford to extend our moral viewpoint. If we can't afford to, it's clear we stick to self and kin.

(October 17, 2013 at 2:51 am)max-greece Wrote: Are you starting to understand yet?

Its not God, the Boogie man, the police, the courts, the legal system that impacts any of this. This is an entirely internal process - devoid of external influence. I think it is a natural state, or target state.

Why am I good?

Because I like the way it makes me feel.

Yeah! I do understand.

And (good) is all that is important to God, no matter what we percieve Him to be!

Personally? I feel the same way (as God) does. All that matters to me is that we can have a "good" relationship and "try" to understand each others methods and motives. That is the point of my questions!

I've never condemned any of you for not believing in God. What I have condemned is the closed-mindedness, and persecution of those who love God.

As God's children, we are to love one another. And I do love each one of you! But I do hate the personal attacks for what our belief's are! Just because we are part of a religion does not make us inherently guilty by association..... especially since most of you know that our relationship with God is based on a "personal" one. We are not saved collectively, but individually. And we are well aware of religion's shortcomings. And most of us want to change that.

But....people organize religion, not God. I might love people, but I have little faith in them to do anything right. Like our govt for example!

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!