Jump to content


Photo

That’s The Evolution Way.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#81 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:44 AM

Given the distinction between evolution as a biological theory (which I believe in) and the misrepresentation of evolution as a social theory (which I have made it clear that I do not believe in), how exactly do you think evolution has affected my morals? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I would really like to hear your answer.

I do not know you, Isabella. I cannot comment on your morals. I only know your view regarding abortion. And by now you know my opinion on that matter. I do believe you are a good person. I also know that you, just like me, are not without sin. The big deferens is where we thing our morals are coming from. Mine is coming from God where yours is from man and nature. God never change. Nature and man change. So will your morals. Except for abortions I believe that atheist and Christians have very similar morals, for now.

If you’re suggesting that morals are the product of evolution in the sense that human behaviour is genetically determined, I would agree with you to some extent. However based on what you’ve been saying, it seems to me that you’re less concerned with the evolutionary process and more concerned with social Darwinism.
I think morals are a combination of learned social behaviours and genetically determined social behaviours.

Looking at evolution. Then everything living is a product of evolution. And everything that living things do is product of evolution.



Over time, yes. I think this is true for both Christians and atheists alike. The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoning. Do Christians still believe that this is a morally acceptable punishment? Since the time that the Old Testament was written, many religions have formed and all have diverse moral views.


It is difficult to comment on this phrase. “The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoning” Please if you can. Give me the book and verse where it is written. So often people take bits out of context. Did God instructed this or did man?
You have to understand the deferens between God’s law (morals) and punishment when breaking this law. The law (Morals) never changed punishment have. Adultery is still morally wrong. This is why Jesus had to die on the cross. Even after all this earthly punishments we still committed the sins. This is why Jesus had to be sacrifice for our sins.

Everyone still follows the basic rules: don’t murder, don’t steal, respect your parents, etc. but I think it’s fair to say that these values are so widespread they can hardly be considered purely religious in nature. Atheists follow those rules too, after all.

Like I said the big deferens is where we thing our morals are coming from.
Consider this. (I do know you do not believe in this) Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden of Eden. They knew God existed. They have eaten from the tree of good and evil. They knew sin. (The birth of morals). If they where the mother and father of all humans, maybe this is why all humans have the basics rules.

Just to be clear, I don’t think morals are subject to change dramatically within one’s lifetime. Just because I’m an atheist, I’m not going to wake up one day and randomly decide that murder is ok.

See abortion.
Randomly no. Your environment may change for the worst. So will your morals.

Killing is killing, regardless of who’s doing it or why. Again this comes down to semantics, but I think the word murder implies killing another person with a malicious intent. Only the latter two fit that definition (although I can’t really make any assumptions about the intent of a human 100,000 years ago).

Evolution suggests we are all animals.
Person = human = animal.
Animal killing animal with a malicious intent = Murder?
If morality is subjected to change that mean killing a human for food 100 000 year ago may not have been murder. Then murder was morally right. What then of rape and theft.
If murder was never morally right. (Human killing human) Then where did morals come from in the first place? God?

In this case, if the stronger lion was better able to survive and reproduce then I suppose this would be survival of the fittest. Physical strength can sometimes be a factor in reproductive success. However I hope you’re not trying to draw a parallel between lion social dynamics and that of humans. If a human killed another to gain political power, this is unlikely to impact their own survival or the number of children they will produce. This would not be an example of fitness.



Do you know of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe? The one with the most power make the rules. The fittest survive. The strongest Lion rules the pride, for better or for worst. This is evolution, nature. Evolution is a natural process.

Nature has no morals, no write or wrong, only survival. Humans are animals. Animals are part of nature. Nature evolves. Animal instincts evolve for the animal to survive. Human morality will be adjusted as the environment change. Politics have everything to do with survival.

#82 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 05:14 AM

Crous, thank you for being such a strong voice standing up for the innocent!  Amen to your post.

It's interesting that a man who murders a pregnant woman can be charged for double murder.  Yet a woman and a doctor who work together to murder her own unborn child?  It becomes a legal and acceptable "procedure".

They call it choice - when one must ask, what choice is it?  The choice to kill?  So it is now a woman's right to murder her own child?  What choice does the baby have?  The baby has no voice with which to defend her/himself, no ability to escape and hide, no trial before being put on the worst kind of death row.  The murder these children are subjected to defies belief.  Even a criminal on death row who has committed a grevious crime has a more humane death.

The unborn child has committed no crime and is innocent, yet is subjected to the most henious act imaginable.  The jewish holocaust does not even come close to the unborn holocaust, yet it's treated as "normal".  Or "an option" and made legal.  I've seen people stand up for animal rights, unbelievers/believers alike, are completely indifferent to the rights of the unborn human child.  SAVE THE WHALE, but stuff the unborn child.  I've had people get angry at me for ever putting anything up on my facebook page that supports the protection of unborn children, yet praise me if I ever put up anything supporting the rights and protection of animals. 

The unborn child is an individual.  She/he is human, she/he has a gender.  The unborn child is not a mole, a wart, or a tumour, yet it is treated as though he/she is as soon as she/he becomes an inconvenience.  Then that little person becomes, disposable (at least in some people's eyes). 

It's a woman's right ?  If we are to be consistent, it should then be a woman's right to murder her child at any point during the child''s early years.  If she feels the child is not wanted anymore, causing a financial burden, or is a source of grief (memories etc), then surely it is her right to kill that child?  It's hers afterall and who has the right to interfere?  Afterall, if we're to be consistent, it's anybody's right to kill their children at any point in time and it's actually safer to kill a child out of the womb than inside the womb where the mother can herself be maimed/damaged in some way. Yet somehow we recognise it as murder and wrong when it comes to a child out of the womb (apart from those who support partial birth abortion).  But if the child is hidden inside the womb, it's no longer murder (unless it's a pregnant mother killed by somebody).

Just because a dreadful crime becomes "legal", does not make it right. Just as if they legalised peodophilia.  Would that then make it acceptable behaviour?  Of course not.  So how on earth can murdering an unborn child be considered acceptable behaviour under any circumstances? 

Problem is, those that are for abortion will ALWAYS use the most extreme circumstances as their reason for supporting abortion.  They will frequently attempt to use the guilt trip resonse of "incest/rape/risk to mother if she has the child" etc.  This is what they will do to attempt to make the pro-lifers feel somehow guilty about supporting the life of unborn children.  But you must ask them, why not then abort the rapist?  Why is the unborn child the one to be murdered for a crime it did not commit?  How does commiting murder on an unborn child a lesser crime than the rape/incest and how does this help anybody by matching one crime with another that is as bad, if not worse. If the Mother is in danger from a dodgy pregnancy, the baby is also in danger of being deliberatey murdered.  I have heard of pregnant mothers being told they should not go through with the pregancy and should abort because of the risk, wind up going through with it and both Mum and baby surviing fine and the Mum being horrified at how close she was to having the child aborted.  Such mother preferred to risk themselves than deliberately kill their unborn baby. 

The thing is, most abortions are not occuring because of the above extreme circumstances anyway.  Most are done out of unwanted/inconvenient pregnancies.  Either way, killing an innocent child should not be justifiable under any circumstances.  Once we allowed  such a vile foot in the door, the flood gates open and we have yet another holocaust on our hands that shows a barbaric and sinful society who murders its own children and calls it "choice". 

Of course, they will also claim that if we don't do this, we will have backstreet abortions.  We cannot stop people commiting such crimes, because they will happen.  But to legalise such an act, just to make it "cleaner" and "safer" for the Mother, makes us as a society (who support this) part of this murderous act and has also increased the murders to an extreme, because it's so much easier now to "get rid of" the child.  It does not change the seriousness of the crime, but rather makes criminals out of many more people (doctors included).  I have also heard that there is a deliberate exaggeration of these apparent "backstreet" abortions, that are not as frequent as we have been lead to believe.  But those who are attempting to promote abortions (financial motivation), which would not surprise me.  Since planned parenthood are known to do whatever it takes to get more abortions!  Ex abortionists have also made statements as to what they were told to say and do to gain as many abortions as possible and not let on how human the child really is.  Some thankfully got out of it, after they could no longer stand to be a part of mutiliating/murdering innocent babies and then having to put the pieces back together (like a jigsaw) of the once complete baby to ensure that no parts were left inside the Mother.  The humanity of the child is in no doubt, but it must become that much more evident and in your face as one pieces together the tiny limbs/fingers/toes etc.

View Post

You said it brother.


The thing is atheist does not consider all human life sacred and equal. You see they do not consider an unwanted unborn human. Only the wanted is human. In time they will push this boundary of morality even further. And they will use science to help justify this change in morality.

Remember in the end we are just animals in their view.

Animal Farm: “All animals are equal some are more equal than other.”
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Animal_Farm

#83 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:42 AM

Charles Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to s@x:

“ At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ”

#84 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 February 2011 - 07:44 AM

I think morals are a combination of learned social behaviours and genetically determined social behaviours  


Wow. What an incredible statement when we think about it? How about it actually being individual choice?

Several years ago an abortion doctor who had aided in numerous abortions was murdered. I said to one of my friends there must be some irony there? Pro choicers were saying how wrong the evil done to him was. I quipped, "Though it may have been “late term” someone aborted the abortion doctor." While two wrongs do not make a right there was a sort of poetic justice to I his end.

When should a mother give up her rights to abort? Two Years old ? Three ears old?

#85 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:36 PM

You said it brother.
The thing is atheist does not consider all human life sacred and equal. You see they do not consider an unwanted unborn human. Only the wanted is human. In time they will push this boundary of morality even further. And they will use science to help justify this change in morality.

Remember in the end we are just animals in their view.

Animal Farm: “All animals are equal some are more equal than other.”
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Animal_Farm

View Post


Thing is Crous, and this is what I've struggled to understand. These same people will more often than not, stand up strong for the rights of animals and against the abuse/mistreatment of them, which is admirable, but why don't they do the same for our children in the womb? Why this bizzare inconsistency?

Wow. What an incredible statement when we think about it? How about it actually being individual choice?

Several years ago an abortion doctor who had aided in numerous abortions was murdered. I said to one of my friends there must be some irony there? Pro choicers were saying how wrong the evil done to him was. I quipped, "Though it may have been “late term” someone aborted the abortion doctor." While two wrongs do not make a right there was a sort of poetic justice to I his end.


Mike, someone quite close to me (who I've never seen show much concern or interest regarding the many unborn children being murdered in the womb on a daily basis whether still in the womb or partially born) was raving oneday about a pro-lifer killing an abortionist (must be the one you're referring to). Now yes, that is wrong, but you can see why someone might do that. How does one stop a mass murderer who has been given the right to do what he does? You can't inform on them, and you can't shut down their clinics, unless you commit a crime. What Christians should do is continue protesting against this horrific crime, praying and simply making sure the mothers out there are informed about the child in their womb and also informed of places they can go for support during/after their pregnancies and the councelling available for such people who maybe in a dire situation. I believe in prayer, and the power of prayer, and have heard some amazing stories about abortion clinics closing down.

But, the entire time, not ONCE did she mention the thousands of little babies that have been murdered at this abortionist's hands. I just stared at her at one point and said "I know what that person did was wrong, but what about the many babies that have been murdered under that abortionist?" She just looked at me and said "yes but" and it was treated like a side issue.

So there is a very odd inconsistency here that so much concern can be shown for animals, but little to none for our unborn children. How does one reconcile this in their own minds and hearts?

#86 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:44 PM

Thing is Crous, and this is what I've struggled to understand.  These same people will more often than not, stand up strong for the rights of animals and against the abuse/mistreatment of them, which is admirable, but why don't they do the same for our children in the womb?  Why this bizzare inconsistency?
Mike, someone quite close to me (who I've never seen show much concern or interest regarding the many unborn children being murdered in the womb on a daily basis whether still in the womb or partially born) was raving oneday about a pro-lifer killing an abortionist (must be the one you're referring to). Now yes, that is wrong, but you can see why someone might do that.  How does one stop a mass murderer who has been given the right to do what he does?  You can't inform on them, and you can't shut down their clinics, unless you commit a crime.  What Christians should do is continue protesting against this horrific crime, praying and simply making sure the mothers out there are informed about the child in their womb and also informed of places they can go for support during/after their pregnancies and the councelling available for such people who maybe in a dire situation.  I believe in prayer, and the power of prayer, and have heard some amazing stories about abortion clinics closing down.

But, the entire time, not ONCE did she mention the thousands of little babies that have been murdered at this abortionist's hands. I just stared at her at one point and said "I know what that person did was wrong, but what about the many babies that have been murdered under that abortionist?"  She just looked at me and said "yes but" and it was treated like a side issue. 

So there is a very odd inconsistency here that so much concern can be shown for animals, but little to none for our unborn children.  How does one reconcile this in their own minds and hearts?

View Post


Atheists have morals of comfort. The unborn do not have eye to look into

#87 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:55 PM

I think morals are a combination of learned social behaviours and genetically determined social behaviours  


Wow. What an incredible statement when we think about it? How about it actually being individual choice?

Several years ago an abortion doctor who had aided in numerous abortions was murdered. I said to one of my friends there must be some irony there? Pro choicers were saying how wrong the evil done to him was. I quipped, "Though it may have been “late term” someone aborted the abortion doctor." While two wrongs do not make a right there was a sort of poetic justice to I his end.

When should a mother give up her rights to abort? Two Years old ? Three ears old?

View Post


I don’t think atheist have no moral compass. I think the only reason it seems that they have similar moral values than us is because there society is or at some stage was religious. Western society is or was at some stage a Christian society.

#88 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:56 PM

Atheists have morals of comfort. The unborn do not have eye to look into

View Post


Well, I think you do have a point here. But I've also seen people get upset over puppies being aborted from a mother dog (whom don't care about babies being aborted). So again, I still cannot make sense out of such double standards, especially when it comes to a human child.

#89 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 16 February 2011 - 01:22 AM

Well, I think you do have a point here.  But I've also seen people get upset over puppies being aborted from a mother dog (whom don't care about babies being aborted).  So again, I still cannot make sense out of such double standards, especially when it comes to a human child.

View Post


I share your frustration.

#90 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 February 2011 - 05:52 AM

I don’t think atheist have no moral compass. I think the only reason it seems that they have similar moral values than us is because there society is or at some stage was religious. Western society is or was at some stage a Christian society.

View Post

You make an excellent point. I often wonder how much America has worked because of the values instilled in us as a people heavily influenced by Christianity. I speculate it’s easy to be an atheist among people that govern themselves with strong values of what is right and what is wrong--people that make an attemp to treat everyone the same no matter what they believe because they respect God and they feel He wants them too. No external laws can govern us because we have free choice. When a large percentage of people believe anything goes, Hitlers abound.

The civil rights movement demostrated that the majority of Americans believed in equality. Are atheists taking advantage of the residual effects of Christianity? I look at places like Haiti and Mogadishu where lawless reigns. How many atheists would want to move to such places to practice survival of the fittest?

#91 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 February 2011 - 05:20 PM

Hi everyone,

I’ve been away for the last few days, so I apologize for this late response. However, after reading the replies I really don’t have much to add. I was hoping we could avoid an in-depth debate on abortion, and yet it appears that’s what this thread has become. I clearly stated my views on abortion and the reasons I hold those views. It has nothing to do with “morals of comfort” or failing to recognize that the fetus is human. I realize that Christians believe every person has a soul, which is obviously a significant factor when considering the ethics of pro-life vs. pro-choice. Although I do not agree with your point of view, I understand the reasoning behind it.

The thing is atheist does not consider all human life sacred and equal. You see they do not consider an unwanted unborn human. Only the wanted is human. In time they will push this boundary of morality even further. And they will use science to help justify this change in morality.

Remember in the end we are just animals in their view.

View Post

This statement is offensive to me. To say that atheists do not consider an unborn baby a human means you have ignored my previous posts. Furthermore, you’re referring to atheists collectively as predictable (we’re going to push the moral boundary further?) and unethical. You started this thread to demonstrate how evolution can lead to discrimination, and yet here you are discriminating against atheists because they do not share your religious views.

I have tried to show respect towards your beliefs, but clearly you have no respect for mine.

I think I am done with this discussion for the time being.

#92 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:29 PM

Hi everyone,

I’ve been away for the last few days, so I apologize for this late response. However, after reading the replies I really don’t have much to add. I was hoping we could avoid an in-depth debate on abortion, and yet it appears that’s what this thread has become. I clearly stated my views on abortion and the reasons I hold those views. It has nothing to do with “morals of comfort” or failing to recognize that the fetus is human. I realize that Christians believe every person has a soul, which is obviously a significant factor when considering the ethics of pro-life vs. pro-choice. Although I do not agree with your point of view, I understand the reasoning behind it.

This statement is offensive to me. To say that atheists do not consider an unborn baby a human means you have ignored my previous posts. Furthermore, you’re referring to atheists collectively as predictable (we’re going to push the moral boundary further?) and unethical. You started this thread to demonstrate how evolution can lead to discrimination, and yet here you are discriminating against atheists because they do not share your religious views.

I have tried to show respect towards your beliefs, but clearly you have no respect for mine.

I think I am done with this discussion for the time being.

View Post

Look. I think you may be unnecessarily disturbing yourself over this. If you can say it’s ok to abort a baby and Crous and I do not get offended then why can’t someone say the same thing about your beliefs not you necessarily as an individual? I wasn’t offended when you said you thought it was ok to abort a baby by the mothers choice. This is not about collecting injustices but a frank honest discussion about our differences. I respect you and your position with my highest regards. I hope you don’t take your marbles and go away sulking? Please, don’t do that Isabella? The forum needs a female point of view.

All the best,
Mike

#93 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 February 2011 - 09:10 PM

Look. I think you may be unnecessarily disturbing yourself over this. If you can say it’s ok to abort a baby and Crous and I do not get offended then why can’t someone say the same thing about your beliefs not you necessarily as an individual?  I wasn’t offended when you said you thought it  was ok to abort a baby by the mothers choice.  This is not about collecting injustices but a frank honest discussion about our differences. I respect you and your position with my highest regards. I hope you don’t take your marbles and go away sulking? Please, don’t do that Isabella?  The forum needs a female point of view.

All the best,
Mike

View Post


I understand that that my opinions may offend you, just as some of the opinions held by Christians offend me. Such is the reality of controversial debate topics, and I can live with that.

What I don’t appreciate are opinion-based statements about what all atheists think, feel, or plan to do in the future. Yes, many atheists are pro-choice, but to say that atheists do not value human life and plan to use science to push the boundaries of morality is going too far. To me, this borders on an ad hominem attack.

I’m not going away sulking, don’t worry. I’ll still be around, but for the time being I don’t have much to add to this subject. Abortion is a very difficult debate topic, because our opinions are influenced heavily by our prerequisite beliefs. You believe the unborn baby has a soul, and there’s no argument I could use that would convert you to pro-choice. Not that conversion has ever been or ever will be my goal on this forum.

#94 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 February 2011 - 09:38 PM

I understand that that my opinions may offend you, just as some of the opinions held by Christians offend me. Such is the reality of controversial debate topics, and I can live with that.

What I don’t appreciate are opinion-based statements about what all atheists think, feel, or plan to do in the future. Yes, many atheists are pro-choice, but to say that atheists do not value human life and plan to use science to push the boundaries of morality is going too far. To me, this borders on an ad hominem attack.

I’m not going away sulking, don’t worry. I’ll still be around, but for the time being I don’t have much to add to this subject. Abortion is a very difficult debate topic, because our opinions are influenced heavily by our prerequisite beliefs. You believe the unborn baby has a soul, and there’s no argument I could use that would convert you to pro-choice. Not that conversion has ever been or ever will be my goal on this forum.

View Post

Cool
Let me say this, I am a cognitive therapist and I assure you I practice what I preach--even my Christianity. Psa 119:165 "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." Even in the realm of secular psychology your claim of someone external causing your disturbance would not be supported.

An ancient philosopher Epictetus said "People are disturbed not by things but the views they take of things." That just means, "You are doing it to your self." --Albert Ellis Rationa Emotive Behavioral Therapist (and atheist).

Again, with all due respect to you, I only speak for myself. I am sure you do the same. However, you supposedly gave up the idea of a savior when you gave up Chrisrianity. You do not have to speak for all atheists--at least from my point of view. You are an individual not atheists' savior.

Later :lol:

#95 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 21 February 2011 - 12:03 AM

I’d rather not get into a big debate about abortion, but I am pro-choice. Just to be clear, pro-choice does not mean that I support abortion or think that it’s a good thing. Abortions are typically done early in the pregnancy, and at this point the embryo or fetus is physically dependant on the mother and is essentially part of her body. Although I don’t like the idea of killing an unborn baby, I think that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body. In my opinion, because the embryo/fetus lacks autonomy from the mother it is a more complex situation than the murder of a fully independent human and cannot automatically be labelled as such.

View Post

This statement is offensive to me. To say that atheists do not consider an unborn baby a human means you have ignored my previous posts. Furthermore, you’re referring to atheists collectively as predictable (we’re going to push the moral boundary further?) and unethical. You started this thread to demonstrate how evolution can lead to discrimination, and yet here you are discriminating against atheists because they do not share your religious views.
I have tried to show respect towards your beliefs, but clearly you have no respect for mine.
I think I am done with this discussion for the time being.

View Post

Isabella please read post 81. You will find that I mention that I do not know you personally. I also know where you stand regarding abortion. I apologise that you feel offended on my comments. This was not a personal attack on you Isabella.
I’m challenging morals when applying evolution as an influence on an atheist world view.
I use abortion when I argue morals because this is the one measurable difference between our morals. Just like you I do not want to make this an argument about abortion. But we cannot dismiss this completely when comparing the origins and future of morals.
For discussion sake let’s leave abortion alone for the moment.
Please if you are still up for it. Comment on the rest of post 81 and 83.

#96 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 23 February 2011 - 12:29 PM

It is difficult to comment on this phrase. “The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoning” Please if you can. Give me the book and verse where it is written. So often people take bits out of context. Did God instructed this or did man?
You have to understand the deferens between God’s law (morals) and punishment when breaking this law. The law (Morals) never changed punishment have. Adultery is still morally wrong. This is why Jesus had to die on the cross. Even after all this earthly punishments we still committed the sins. This is why Jesus had to be sacrifice for our sins.

View Post

I think the passage I was looking at may have been Deuteronomy 22:22, but there are many other references to adultery in the Bible. My understanding is that the Bible is written by man but inspired by God. To me, a change in punishment corresponds to a change in morals. I don’t think it would be morally right to kill someone because they committed adultery, but according to the Bible this was the accepted punishment at the time.

See abortion.
Randomly no. Your environment may change for the worst. So will your morals.

View Post

Couldn’t your morals change as well? If someone received what they felt was a sign from God telling them to change their morals, would they do so? I have a feeling that the people who murder abortion doctors feel that what they are doing is justified, even though the 10 commandments state that killing is wrong.

Evolution suggests we are all animals.
Person = human = animal.
Animal killing animal with a malicious intent = Murder?
If morality is subjected to change that mean killing a human for food 100 000 year ago may not have been murder. Then murder was morally right. What then of rape and theft.
If murder was never morally right. (Human killing human) Then where did morals come from in the first place? God?

View Post

“Animal” is just a classification group, and humans are part of it. The criteria for belonging to the Kingdom Animalia are as follows: multicellular, eukaryotic, and heterotrophic. Humans meet all three criteria. This doesn’t imply that humans and other animals must think and behave in the same way.
I could talk about why I think humans developed an aversion to murder from an evolutionary perspective, but I’m not sure if that’s what you want to hear. It would go along with the development of modern human behaviour and the formation of societies.

Do you know of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe? The one with the most power make the rules. The fittest survive. The strongest Lion rules the pride, for better or for worst. This is evolution, nature. Evolution is a natural process.

Nature has no morals, no write or wrong, only survival. Humans are animals. Animals are part of nature. Nature evolves. Animal instincts evolve for the animal to survive. Human morality will be adjusted as the environment change. Politics have everything to do with survival.

View Post

What you’re talking about is social Darwinism. I don’t see how politics relates to biological evolution. As for morals changing over time, I don’t think this is limited to atheists. Religious morals have changed over time too. New religions have been developed, with new rules to follow. Old rules have been changed and replaced. If the environment affects morality, then we’re all prone to change.

Charles Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to s@x:

“ At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ”

View Post

What does this have to do with anything? Darwin’s opinions are not representative of modern science.

#97 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 February 2011 - 12:45 AM

Couldn’t your morals change as well? If someone received what they felt was a sign from God telling them to change their morals, would they do so? I have a feeling that the people who murder abortion doctors feel that what they are doing is justified, even though the 10 commandments state that killing is wrong.


Surely you are not arguing there is something immoral about killing an abortion doctor? He killed lots of babies and someone killed (aborted) him . Guess he just reaped what he sowed. Of course I am being a bit facetious.

#98 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:54 AM

I think the passage I was looking at may have been Deuteronomy 22:22, but there are many other references to adultery in the Bible. My understanding is that the Bible is written by man but inspired by God. To me, a change in punishment corresponds to a change in morals. I don’t think it would be morally right to kill someone because they committed adultery, but according to the Bible this was the accepted punishment at the time.

View Post

Yes I understand what you are saying. One think you have to keep in mind is that according to God all sins will be punished by deaf. But because God loves us he send His only son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross. There is still a deferens between sin and punishment. Sin and morals will never change. Punishment on earth did change. God will still judge you according to your sin after your earthly deaf. If you accepted that Jesus sacrificed himself for your sins and considers him as your savoir. His blood washed away your sins. So you have no sins to be judge. But if you do not believe that Jesus is your savoir you still have sins. And Gods punishment is still deaf. There is a deferens between deaf on earth and deaf after judgment.

Couldn’t your morals change as well?

View Post

Yes, I commit sins every day. But moral from God do not change.

If someone received what they felt was a sign from God telling them to change their morals, would they do so?

View Post

This is not the God of the Bible, the Christian God.



I have a feeling that the people who murder abortion doctors feel that what they are doing is justified, even though the 10 commandments state that killing is wrong. 

View Post

Yes, murder is wrong.
There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Self-defence is not murder. Kill someone while protecting your loved ones is not murder. Kill someone out of hate is murder.
God know your heart. And the only judgment you need to fear is the judgment of God. Do I think it is justified to kill that doctor? No. Jesus what us to forgive. I think if someone kills that doctor out of hate it is wrong.
Hypothetical question. If your country says that child molestation is not against the law. And that that doctor keeps on molesting children. Would you want to kill that doctor to defend the innocent children? And what if I were “pro choice”, when it comes to child molestation?

“Animal” is just a classification group, and humans are part of it. The criteria for belonging to the Kingdom Animalia are as follows: multicellular, eukaryotic, and heterotrophic.
Humans meet all three criteria. This doesn’t imply that humans and other animals must think and behave in the same way.
I could talk about why I think humans developed an aversion to murder from an evolutionary perspective, but I’m not sure if that’s what you want to hear. It would go along with the development of modern human behaviour and the formation of societies.
What you’re talking about is social Darwinism. I don’t see how politics relates to biological evolution. As for morals changing over time, I don’t think this is limited to atheists. Religious morals have changed over time too. New religions have been developed, with new rules to follow. Old rules have been changed and replaced. If the environment affects morality, then we’re all prone to change.
.

View Post

Let me take a step back. I am not against the theory of evolution. I’m against the fact that people use it to disproof God. Evolution has its strong point and it’s not so strong points. And just like the theory of gravity the more we learn the better we will understand.
Evolution can be true today and in some sense wrong tomorrow. For me there are two Questions. “How” and “Who”? You cannot answer the “how” question with a “Who” answers. You cannot answer the “Who” question with a “how” answer.
I’m a “creator” because I believe that God created all. And maybe science can tell us how Hi did it.
Please do not feel that you need to defend evolution as n scientific theory in this post.
That does not mean that I won’t challenge you on it in a different post.
Lets for the moment accept evolution as the best explanation. The how question.


Bake to topic.
Social Darwinism is a product of evolution old view. Let’s not argue this now.
You already agreed that according to the evo’s world view morals can change and humans are just animals.
My questions
1. How or what decide how and when morals change.
2. And why

#99 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:56 PM

I think I know where you are going and what you mean. However, Social Darwinism still exists as discrimination against other beings. Pretending it doesn’t will not make it go away. .

Where does an atheist’s morals come from—their ability to think that there is something to be gained by lying. Of course a lie is ill conceived. Why? Because we often detect when a person is lying and have the ability to expose a lie. Once we know a lie is a lie “it” has lost its effect. If we know the “truth” nothing changes. What benefit has evolution been to the human race? What benefit has love been to the human race—lots. Its use can only cause peace.

#100 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 09 March 2011 - 12:00 AM

I think I know where you are going and what you mean. However, Social Darwinism still exists as discrimination against other beings. Pretending it doesn’t will not make it go away. . 

View Post

Yes social Darwinism does exist. I know a atheist have a social Darwinism world view. I cannot really call her a friend because of her could approach to life and other people.
Isabella on the other hand seems like a loving human been. She herself does not agree with social Darwinism. Out of my experience most atheists can be loving people. In general they live a more sinful life, then again show me a Christian that does not commit sins.
The ten commandment is broken up in two parts. First part is how we have to act against God. And the second part is how we have to act against other people. I general they follow the second part. Because they have proof that people lives. The first part they don’t, they claim there is no proof for God.
Christian and non Christians are born with the same moral code that God imprinted us with. And we have the same tendency to break this moral code. The difference is that we as Christians know the punishment for breaking this moral code. And we as Christians also have the detailed understanding of this moral code. (That we find in the Bible)
You shall not murder. (Keep in mind that there is a deferens between murder and killing) Look at abortion for instants. As Christians all life are sacred. For atheist the definition of life has changed. For them murder is still moral wrong, their focus have just changed. There moral code is subjected to change. Christian’s moral code will not change. I my point of view, atheists have moral of comfort.


Where does an atheist’s morals come from—their ability to think that there is something to be gained by lying. Of course a lie is ill conceived. Why? Because we often detect when a person is lying and have the ability to expose a lie. Once we know a lie is a lie “it” has lost its effect.  If we know the “truth” nothing changes. What benefit has evolution been to the human race?  What benefit has love been to the human race—lots. Its use can only cause peace.

View Post


“What benefit has evolution been to the human race? “ – Opposable thumbs. :)

Evolution may or may not answer the life on a biological level. It cannot answer morals and instinct or urges.
I think atheist have morals because of religion. Let’s look at Canada, America and South Africa. This countries where found on Christian values. So atheist in these countries has in a sense Christian morals. The atheist movement in these countries is very young comparing to Christianity. What will happen in the future if these countries are run on atheist moral view that is subjected to change?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users