Sam wrote:
Yes, I hoped I didn’t need to spell out everything. Are there any non-evolutionists on this forum?
Really? Don’t evolutionists pride themselves on the thoroughly naturalistic mechanisms of the evolutionary process? To quote paleontologist and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” I’d say that’s a pretty good foundation. I’m surprised you’re contesting it.
I’m someone who is familiar with standard evolutionist theory. On naturalistic (i.e. non-theistic) evolutionary premises, life in general and man in particular are cosmic accidents. The universe did not purpose that they should arise.
I’m not stating what our purpose is, I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. We’re random colonies of bacteria, without purpose, meaning, design, or dignity. Some atheists will readily admit this, why won’t you?
I think you need to read up on some of the standard literature:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
- Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden
Do you care to correct Prof. Dawkins? He’s sounding pretty nihilistic there . . .
I haven’t stated what I believe to be our purpose. I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. Why do you run from the obvious? Are the implications too scary?
Earlier you chided me for not making explicit an implicit premise (re evolution), now I’m chided for making explicit and explicit premise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . oh . . . I probably shouldn’t use that phrase with atheists.
Your moral values are merely personal or cultural preferences: X is praiseworthy because I like X. Why should I adopt your values? They cannot impose moral obligation on anyone who disagrees.
All atheists here who reject evolution, say “I do.”
[awkward silence]
Honestly, its not like I’m going out on a limb here, so I’m not worried that my entire argument is at risk.
Sure I have, as I originally wrote “I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it.” Those who don’t enthusiastically affirm nihilism have not yet learned the “hardest lesson” that the universe is “indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose” as Dawkins succinctly puts it.
Its like an alcoholic who can’t admit he has a drinking problem, or a Christian who can’t admit that unrepentant sinners go to Hell; the truth is too uncomfortable.
Why? You’re a cosmic accident. A meat machine. A colony of bacteria. The universe didn’t design you to understand. It doesn’t care if you understand everything or understand nothing. And when you’re dead it still won’t care. Your life, Sam, is meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. These are the implications of your own evolutionary/atheistic presuppositions.
Dawkins was right, it is the hardest lesson for humans to learn.
The Bible contains my moral standard, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say my moral standard is skewed by it.
I’m not saying that at all. Religious people do not assign value, God does.
From God. He is the Lawgiver.
If he had not revealed the law, I would not know it, correct.
I would have need for self-control whether the law was revealed or not.
I am following it. You still haven’t reached your conclusion that “without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.”
International law is arbitrated by compromise and treaty. Its not like the UN or the ICC appeals to innate ideas.
I’ll simply quote Dawkins again: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
God’s law is certainly a cross cultural moral standard. The Ten Commandments, for example, are binding on all people of every culture throughout history. It wasn’t intended merely for the Jews 3500 years ago.
Good discussion, Sam, thanks.
Quote: (Not quite, atheism posits only a lack of belief in gods. I think you mean evoloutionary theory?)
Yes, I hoped I didn’t need to spell out everything. Are there any non-evolutionists on this forum?
Quote: Your assertion that natural forces are intrinsicly purposeless has no foundation,
Really? Don’t evolutionists pride themselves on the thoroughly naturalistic mechanisms of the evolutionary process? To quote paleontologist and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” I’d say that’s a pretty good foundation. I’m surprised you’re contesting it.
Quote: who are you to dictate that a life brought about by evoloution has any less purpose than your own?
I’m someone who is familiar with standard evolutionist theory. On naturalistic (i.e. non-theistic) evolutionary premises, life in general and man in particular are cosmic accidents. The universe did not purpose that they should arise.
Quote: I assume your saying that your purpose is to serve and one day be with God? I would consider an atheists pursuit of scientific and personal truths much more meaningfull regardless of the fact that when we die we cease to exist, at least that life would contribute something of use to furture generations.
I’m not stating what our purpose is, I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. We’re random colonies of bacteria, without purpose, meaning, design, or dignity. Some atheists will readily admit this, why won’t you?
Quote: Again, there is no basis for that ... simply saying that "by definition" isn't enough! Just because existence stems from something other than a creator God DOES NOT make it purposeless, our purpose simply fills a smaller time frame (i.e. our lives)
I think you need to read up on some of the standard literature:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
- Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden
Do you care to correct Prof. Dawkins? He’s sounding pretty nihilistic there . . .
Quote: In line with my arguments above I think your only guide for this is the fact that you draw your purpose from your religion, It seems a little arrogant to therefore assume you can force it on those who don't share it.
I haven’t stated what I believe to be our purpose. I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. Why do you run from the obvious? Are the implications too scary?
Quote: Whoo hoo ... Got one right
Earlier you chided me for not making explicit an implicit premise (re evolution), now I’m chided for making explicit and explicit premise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . oh . . . I probably shouldn’t use that phrase with atheists.
Quote: Moral values do have a purpose in any human life, atheist or not I think this horse has been beaten to death in this thread so I won't reiterate but simply do you really need an all powerfull parent figure giving you a simple yey or ney before you can judge right and wrong? of course not.
Your moral values are merely personal or cultural preferences: X is praiseworthy because I like X. Why should I adopt your values? They cannot impose moral obligation on anyone who disagrees.
Quote: Again atheism and nihlism are two seperate entities, you fundamentally flawed assumption is that all atheist believe in evoloutionary theory which is the crux of your entire argument.
All atheists here who reject evolution, say “I do.”
[awkward silence]
Honestly, its not like I’m going out on a limb here, so I’m not worried that my entire argument is at risk.
Quote: You havent' encountered any atheists willing to admit this because it's absurd,
Sure I have, as I originally wrote “I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it.” Those who don’t enthusiastically affirm nihilism have not yet learned the “hardest lesson” that the universe is “indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose” as Dawkins succinctly puts it.
Its like an alcoholic who can’t admit he has a drinking problem, or a Christian who can’t admit that unrepentant sinners go to Hell; the truth is too uncomfortable.
Quote: I am consistent with my belief that there is no god and also my knowledge of evolution but the logical conclusion I reach are far different from your own ... let me "Connect the dots" for you; I believe that my existence is an astonishing occurence, I believe my life should be devoted to understanding the things around me,
Why? You’re a cosmic accident. A meat machine. A colony of bacteria. The universe didn’t design you to understand. It doesn’t care if you understand everything or understand nothing. And when you’re dead it still won’t care. Your life, Sam, is meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. These are the implications of your own evolutionary/atheistic presuppositions.
Quote: I believe that all humans should be held to a higher moral standard than those flaunted by religion and that such a standard should be based on our ingrained sense of right and wrong as a species and I certainly DO NOT believe that all life is meaningless/purposeless/absurd just because I have no creator God in my life against who I validate everything.
Dawkins was right, it is the hardest lesson for humans to learn.
Quote:Skewed by the bible, the "unaltered word of God".
The Bible contains my moral standard, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say my moral standard is skewed by it.
Quote:Not really, I mean your essentially saying that only religious people can assign value to morals and life etc ...
I’m not saying that at all. Religious people do not assign value, God does.
Quote:and that your morals stem from your religion are you not?
From God. He is the Lawgiver.
Quote:In which case without it you would have no morals?
If he had not revealed the law, I would not know it, correct.
Quote:and hence no need of self control?
I would have need for self-control whether the law was revealed or not.
Quote: - Follow your logic to it's conclusions for me Charles and tell me thats not where you end up ...
I am following it. You still haven’t reached your conclusion that “without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.”
Quote:The fact is that society as a whole (i.e. the global society) has an ingrained sense of right and wrong, that is why we experience tangible pain/sympathy when we see our hear of others suffering. We can obligate everyone in line with this global trend in ethic & morality ... that what international law is all about.
International law is arbitrated by compromise and treaty. Its not like the UN or the ICC appeals to innate ideas.
I’ll simply quote Dawkins again: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
Quote:No, I'm an atheist through and through ... and fyi, theism certainly doesn't affirm any cross cultural moral standards.
God’s law is certainly a cross cultural moral standard. The Ten Commandments, for example, are binding on all people of every culture throughout history. It wasn’t intended merely for the Jews 3500 years ago.
Good discussion, Sam, thanks.
