Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

]I think you just want your perception to be 100% accurate because it helps in your narrative that there is an external moral rule giver, god. You've been conditioned to accept that this god exists and need some reasoning to go along with it, as pure belief isn't entirely satisfactory to you. So you follow WLC and other theist thinkers... Have you ever heard of Edward Feser?

I though it was evolution that tricks me into believing in an objective moral reality, and not my God beliefs? Is such a belief, a product of religious conditioning, or a result of strong evolutionary components? Is it my biology that lead me to believe that torturing innocent babies is wrong, is an objective truth, or my religious conditioning?

Are you reading what I write or are you making up whole sentences in your head to change the meaning of what I write?




Dismiss evolutionary psychology all you want, but that doesn't change that it is a powerful mechanism that can easily account for your perception. Evolution doesn't care if your perception is accurate, only that it works for the purpose it was selected for... and that is to keep the group healthy and thriving.



All you’re doing is making up creative excuses, in fact in terms of evolutionary explantation its not even properly articulated, and is more nonsense than fact.

If you want proper articulation go for a philosophy book on the subject.
This is a forum and I'm a non-native English speaker/writer and not a particularly decent writer in general, so you can expect some crappy flow to my text.


And my narrative is in accordance with the observed world, from the lone creatures, through the simplest animal societies all the way to human psychology.

ou still fail to grasp the simple fact harming another human being (be it a baby, be it an adult... be it for fun or not) is perceived as wrong because we evolved to consider that it is harmful to the group for any of its elements to be harmed.
Such harm is accepted when it comes from outside the group as a fact of life. But it is strongly discouraged from within the group. You see this in practice all over the animal kingdom, except where other imperatives take over. That is why I say that this sort of rule is embedded in your genes, much as it is embedded in other animals' genes.
It's an intuitive rule that has been selected for over millions of years in all social species.



Evolution doesn’t select for rules, it selects for genes, and when it comes to morality at best it selects for some series of biological sensations or reactions when exposed to certain stimuli, such as being disgusted by incense.

Incense? It does have a rather unpleasant smell...
Yes, evolution selects for genes that have a particular expression which I called "rule". Sometimes, colloquial language is not as accurate as we'd like...

At best when it comes to morality your limited to speaking about our emotional reactions. Trying to extend evolutionary explanations behind the underpinning of such emotions, conflates features of our biology, with elements that arise as a product of being conscious self-aware creatures. 

You may account for the feelings that are evoked by the idea of harming other human beings, torturing innocent babies just for fun, as a product of evolution, but the beliefs that arise from it, are not reducible or synonymous with our biological reaction. But rather a product of how our conscious minds perceive such things.

In my view, evolution selected for a variety of components that helps us recognize a moral reality, just like it selected for components that help us recognize other aspects of reality. It produced the senses, and aspects that help us recognize moral truths, as it did other non-moral truths. 

While your counter explanations is bit like gooblygook, barely coherent, and inconsistent, and contradictory. The only reason anyone would believe such a bad argument, is because of their desire not to believe the alternative.

And, once more, you're putting all morality in a bag as if it's all the same thing. Fine, if you need that to have your belief in god validated, go for it... but be aware that it's considered as false by anyone who honestly looks into the topic.

Resemble, but ultimately are not based on a feature of reality, just an emergent feature of a social species.



The only argument you have for why I shouldn’t believe that which appears and resembles what’s real here, isn’t real, is mere appeal to belief that such a reality just can’t exist. All you have is your presupposition, your inability to recognize how your atheism leads to denial of reality itself. 



Someone's in denial and has resorted to repeating the same thing over and over...
Have fun with your life safe in the knowledge that you have some morality, even if you fail to be intellectually honest about it's origins.

I have no need to enforce atheism on morality, it's just the outcome of looking at the world around me. Unlike what you do, where you only focus on your own inner condition in order to justify your indoctrinated belief.

LOL!

How nice of you to say the exact same thing 4 times.



And yet you haven’t corrected it. You haven’t indicated why any part of what I said above is wrong.

Those 4 sentences that all end up meaning the same were, as far I can tell, correctly aligned with all that I've been telling you about true statements.... so why would I say that they're wrong?