Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Aroura]

You have to remember that the core of all morality is enlightened self-interest.

Which ultimately reduces to Might-Makes-Right. Not exactly what we would called liberal Western values.

Just to clarify...atheists can act unselfishly, but they cannot justify calling that a good thing.

Good doesn't have to exist objectively to exist at all. It is certainly a changing concept. What we label as good today might not be considered good 10 years from now. This is certainly true of biblical good as well.

If we get to define what good means, then we can define unselfish actions as good.

It's a lot more work to think it out for yourself and hold logical reasons for these things, but just because life is inherently meaningless doesn't mean we are incapable of assigning meaning to it. Just because good and evil are concepts made by humans, concepts that are fluid and change over time, doesn't make them less real to us right now.

[Pat Mustard]

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Only 50% of the time.

The other 50% he's disingenuous or intentionally obtuse

---

Could you be so kind as to quote the post which gave you the impression I disagree with Hams?

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

Spencer popularised Darwin's Theory of Evolution, coming up with phrases such as "survival of the fittest" and "nature red in tooth and claw". He was a journalist first and foremost, so in his attempt to make the theory more understandable to the layman he oversimplified.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And who is the "we" who get to define good and evil? The fearless leader? The oppressive majority? Do sociopaths get a say?

[Aroura]

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.

Yet again, if you are asserting god is human made concept like good, evil, numbers, etc, then we agree.

You seem to be asserting god is an invisible force or thing that can interact with other things, like gravity, or air or even dark energy, all of which we have actual evidence of.

Seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
?

---

And who is the "we" who get to define good and evil? The fearless leader? The oppressive majority? Do sociopaths get a say?

That varies as well. Sometimes its communities, sometimes leaders, and sometimes individuals. The same way different groups define god differently, because that idea is also maleable and subjective, and changes with time. Hell, you don't even believe in the same god that Christians did 50 years ago! Lol

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Firstly, no apologies needed about the screenname, it's all good. And I appreciate and accept your apology about the misunderstanding.

Regarding descent from Khan, you're making two errors there: First, you're assuming that traits such as brutality and suchlike are genetic, when the overwhelming opinion among behavioral psychologists is that human behavior is a complex interaction between genetics and environment, wherein the proportions of each influence are usually uncertain. Your second error is in assuming that .5% of the male population is enough support for your point that such behavior demonstrates fitness. Even if it is entirely genetic (which is doubtful in the extreme), the fact is that we humans structure our society to contain such behavioral impulses in order to minimize the harm they cause.

[Amarok]

Only 50% of the time.

The other 50% he's disingenuous or intentionally obtuse

---

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

Spencer popularised Darwin's Theory of Evolution, coming up with phrases such as "survival of the fittest" and "nature red in tooth and claw". He was a journalist first and foremost, so in his attempt to make the theory more understandable to the layman he oversimplified.

Indeed and he failed miserably

There is no survival  of the fittest as for tooth and claw again this ignores huge swathes of nature  it's idiotic and clashes with what we have learned since

---

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.

Firstly, no apologies needed about the screenname, it's all good. And I appreciate and accept your apology about the misunderstanding.

Regarding descent from Khan, you're making two errors there: First, you're assuming that traits such as brutality and suchlike are genetic, when the overwhelming opinion among behavioral psychologists is that human behavior is a complex interaction between genetics and environment, wherein the proportions of each influence are usually uncertain. Your second error is in assuming that .5% of the male population is enough support for your point that such behavior demonstrates fitness. Even if it is entirely genetic (which is doubtful in the extreme), the fact is that we humans structure our society to contain such behavioral impulses in order to minimize the harm they cause.

Indeed it's not nature or nurture it's nature and nurture  and 5% is a pathetic means of determining fitness even if we allow for poor genetics they are anomaly that has managed to cling not a genetic trait the dominant nor likely to become so

[Wyrd of Gawd]

That’s why priests and preachers (in mainline churches) focus on teaching people about a God that cares for them personally and how to honor His loving-kindness.

Without a shred of evidence that such a god exists.  THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Zeus exists because he shows it through his countless lightning bolts every day.
Neptune exists because ocean storms occur when he's angry and he beats the water.

[Amarok]

Oh and need I mention Khan believed himself divine and thus all his rapes were fine because........ divinity

---

Without a shred of evidence that such a god exists.  THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Zeus exists because he shows it through his countless lightning bolts every day.
Neptune exists because ocean storms occur when he's angry and he beats the water.

And it clearly doesn't work because there are still evil people

And why should a sociopath care if god loves him ?as for the rest again why should he care ?

---

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.

Firstly, no apologies needed about the screenname, it's all good. And I appreciate and accept your apology about the misunderstanding.

Regarding descent from Khan, you're making two errors there: First, you're assuming that traits such as brutality and suchlike are genetic, when the overwhelming opinion among behavioral psychologists is that human behavior is a complex interaction between genetics and environment, wherein the proportions of each influence are usually uncertain. Your second error is in assuming that .5% of the male population is enough support for your point that such behavior demonstrates fitness. Even if it is entirely genetic (which is doubtful in the extreme), the fact is that we humans structure our society to contain such behavioral impulses in order to minimize the harm they cause.

Oh and the fact that these counter impulses themselves can become our impulses

[Wyrd of Gawd]

And who is the "we" who get to define good and evil? The fearless leader? The oppressive majority?  Do sociopaths get a say?

The person who will gladly slice and dice you gets to define good and evil.  That person could be anyone at any time.  Sometimes it's a parent, other times it's a cop, sometimes it's the national leader.  It could even be a gang leader.

---

Oh and need I mention Khan believed himself divine and thus all his rapes were fine because........ divinity

---

Zeus exists because he shows it through his countless lightning bolts every day.
Neptune exists because ocean storms occur when he's angry and he beats the water.

And it clearly doesn't work because there are still evil people

And why should a sociopath care if god loves him ?as for the rest again why should he care ?

---

The problem might be that you consider people to be evil because they don't do what you want them to do. If everyone did exactly what you wanted them to do you would consider them to be all good.

Were the people evil when they wanted to exercise freedom of religion and worship the golden calf?  Moses thought so and killed about 3,000 of them.  Between the two acts which one would you classify as "evil"?

Is it evil for people to work on the day someone decides that everyone shouldn't do any work on because he wants them to worship his version of a deity?  If that's evil then it must be good to kill them for violating your rule.  

If you had absolute power who knows what kinds of things you would consider evil and punish people for doing because they violate your ideas of what's good and evil?

[Amarok]

And who is the "we" who get to define good and evil? The fearless leader? The oppressive majority?  Do sociopaths get a say?

The person who will gladly slice and dice you gets to define good and evil.  That person could be anyone at any time.  Sometimes it's a parent, other times it's a cop, sometimes it's the national leader.  It could even be a gang leader.

---

Oh and need I mention Khan believed himself divine and thus all his rapes were fine because........ divinity

---

And it clearly doesn't work because there are still evil people

And why should a sociopath care if god loves him ?as for the rest again why should he care ?

---

The problem might be that you consider people to be evil because they don't do what you want them to do. If everyone did exactly what you wanted them to do you would consider them to be all good.

Were the people evil when they wanted to exercise freedom of religion and worship the golden calf?  Moses thought so and killed about 3,000 of them.  Between the two acts which one would you classify as "evil"?

Is it evil for people to work on the day someone decides that everyone shouldn't do any work on because he wants them to worship his version of a deity?  If that's evil then it must be good to kill them for violating your rule.  

If you had absolute power who knows what kinds of things you would consider evil and punish people for doing because they violate your ideas of what's good and evil?

Way to read a lot into one word

I meant that even in accordance with Christianity it clear that preaching's effectiveness is questionable  

And no i'm not saying people are evil because they don't do what I want I get where you even get that impression please ask for clarification of my position rather then imposing a position on me I get enough of that from theists

---

And who is the "we" who get to define good and evil? The fearless leader? The oppressive majority?  Do sociopaths get a say?

A Genocidal magic space ghost gets to apparently because he's "transcendent "  yup that such a better answer