Ignorance and the Bible

[Based Chad]

Yes, I am convinced atheists believe in moral relativism, even when they are reticent to admit it.

I never said anything about a diety. I am agnostic about the origin of human conscience. I don't think Darwinian evolutionary biology explains it.

it does, cooperation works and confers an advantage.

You can't say murder, theft, rape are objectively and absolutely wrong unless you subscribe to an unchanging moral law which isn't subject to human opinion and popular consensus.

yes we can.

Taking a scientific approach to life, murder and rape may sometimes be necessary.

morality is rational.

those things are immoral.

sometimes people do them.

Male lions will kill the cubs of rivals. Male deer will overpower and force female deer to copulate. We don't call it murder or rape because we intuitively know human conscience is in some respect separate from the scientific world.

we have evolved past the animal because of morality.

might makes right is not morality.

Spartans abandoned weak babies, and Vikings practiced female infanticide because the community would only benefit from the strong, and by having more males.

barbaric, backwards, wrong.

The Nazis defined moral value as eliminating inferior races and disabled people, because they were a threat to a healthy and robust Aryan population.

yes. they were and are evil.

I am pretty sure human conscience in mentally healthy adults either perceives absolute right and wrong, or can ultimately be persuaded of it. When people are slowly persuaded through moral argument that human sacrifice, infanticide, slavery are wrong, those societies never go back to it at the institutional scale. That's not a coincidence.

so wrong.

we eliminated slavery and then embraced it for Chinese factory workers.

 

[Based Chad]

God in the OT supports genocide. God in the NT does not.

this is why they are two different religions and one is better.

 

[Cypress]

they are immoral.

Jesus kingdom is not of this earth.


John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world...

You keep running your mouth about 'mutual cooperation' and 'stable society'.

I guarantee you that Schindler and Perlasca didn't risk their lives because they were thinking about stable societies and that mutual cooperation was the highest ideal to strive for.

They risked their lives and their freedom because they saw something that was objectively evil and absolutely wrong.

 

[domer76]

because you like making distinctions without a difference to separate yourself from "religious people"?


yes. that's why.

Yep, that’s exactly it.

 

[Based Chad]

Yep, that’s exactly it.

thanks for your honesty.

 

[Based Chad]

You keep running your mouth about 'mutual cooperation' and 'stable society'.

I guarantee you that Schindler and Perlasca didn't risk their lives because they were thinking about stable societies and that mutual cooperation was the highest ideal to strive for.

They risked their lives and their freedom because they saw something that was objectively evil and absolutely wrong.

they were moral. so what?


do you think you're disproving morality?

 

[gmark77]

You keep running your mouth about 'mutual cooperation' and 'stable society'.

Actually there's an interesting video about this very topic. In game theory, specifically the Prisoners Dilemma each individual run of the PD would suggest acting in one's self interest to the exclusion of the other prisoner's benefit, but interestingly enough if you run simulated repeated runs of the PD with different strategies, those strategies that highlight mutual cooperation tend to outperform those which stress individual goals.

Basically it means that for animals like humans that work in groups mutual cooperation naturally is the superior behavior.

This could easily explain why over millennia social animals tend to converge on mutual cooperation for survival strategies.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM

 

[Based Chad]

You keep running your mouth about 'mutual cooperation' and 'stable society'.

I guarantee you that Schindler and Perlasca didn't risk their lives because they were thinking about stable societies and that mutual cooperation was the highest ideal to strive for.

They risked their lives and their freedom because they saw something that was objectively evil and absolutely wrong.

distinction with no real difference.

you're fucking dumb.

 

[Based Chad]

Actually there's an interesting video about this very topic. In game theory, specifically the Prisoners Dilemma each individual run of the PD would suggest acting in one's self interest to the exclusion of the other prisoner's benefit, but interestingly enough if you run simulated repeated runs of the PD with different strategies, those strategies that highlight mutual cooperation tend to outperform those which stress individual goals.

Basically it means that for animals like humans that work in groups mutual cooperation naturally is the superior behavior.

This could easily explain why over millennia social animals tend to converge on mutual cooperation for survival strategies.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM

thank you.

 

[domer76]

thanks for your honesty.

Sinners go to hell. I’ll merely be dead.

 

[Based Chad]

Sinners go to hell. I’ll merely be dead.

based.

 

[Cypress]

they were moral. so what?

You said morality was rational and based on the self-interest of mutual cooperation.

What Schindler and Perlasca did was irrational by any scientific logical definition, and it wasn't based on the philosophy of mutual cooperation for mutual advantage.

It was based on selfless self-sacrifice on behalf of total strangers, and the moral recognition of objective evil and absolute wrong.

 

[Based Chad]

You said morality was rational and based on the self-interest of mutual cooperation.

What Schindler and Perlasca did was irrational by any scientific logical definition, and it wasn't based on the philosophy of mutual cooperation for mutual advantage.

It was based on selfless self-sacrifice on behalf of total strangers, and the moral recognition of objective evil and absolute wrong.

sometimes an individual loses in doing the right thing. not you, but other better people.

but overall the species excels.

 

[Based Chad]

cypress is anti-cooperation.

 

[gmark77]

What Schindler and Perlasca did was irrational by any scientific logical definition, and it wasn't based on the philosophy of mutual cooperation for mutual advantage.

Anecdotal evidence does not disprove the overall hypothesis.

This is something that happens at the population level. Individuals have variance.

The argument CAN also be made that it was perfectly rational from a self-preservation position to save the Jews from being murdered. But you won't like hearing that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don’t buy evil, either. It has this connotation that a Satan or Satan-like figure is involved.

There are very bad people and very good people and everything in between. We all hold a couple things in common. We’re born and we die. That’s pretty much it.

Again, as has been mentioned several times before, the Bible, the Torah and other religious texts are the perceptions of humans of events from thousands of years ago. "Satan" is a place card holder for bad-things-that-happen. In Africa they are still killing people deemed as witches. Anyone who takes the Bible literally, especially when contradictory to science, are ignorant or simply stupid. Maybe insane.

Science solves the mysteries of natural events but not bigger questions beyond science which only studies the natural universe.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I never thought justice would always prevail. Depending on one’s opinion on what defines justice, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Whether it dominates is anyone’s guess.

There is no such thing as an unchanging moral code. Our views of morality are much different than they were when the Gospels were written. And even more so with the OT. They are different from culture to culture, as well. Humans define morality, not some hidden deity. Not only do humans, as a group, define morality, individuals have their own views. Gay marriage and sex being the first that comes to mind.

Your god, through his churches, has changed his mind even in our times. Interracial marriage, gay marriage. Not so unchanging, is it?

Yep, sin is a theological concept. I have never sinned.

Which confirms my previous posts; atheists believe morality is relative. They should have no problem with what is happening in Gaza. Survival of the fittest. It's natural law.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sinners go to hell. I’ll merely be dead.

Which goes to killing people; so what? As Joni Ernst said, "We're all gonna die". Why not take out some people who deserve it a little early? You know, for the good of the many.

 

[gmark77]

Which confirms my previous posts; atheists believe morality is relative. They should have no problem with what is happening in Gaza. Survival of the fittest. It's natural law.

More attacks on atheists based on a general ignorance of atheism for the simple purpose of scoring cheap points.

 

[Margot]

I'm here all week.

Tip your waitress.

Drum roll