God's purpose

Emily's Cat said:
No you don't. If your position is that you have to *learn* a lack of belief in gods, then you are taking the position that babies believe in god the moment they're born.
Click to expand...

What part of 'we have to learn everything' did you not understand?
 
Navigator said:
Human created morality and laws are part of the process of evolution and regardless of use and misuse, it is yet another thing which separates us from the other apes and critters in general...likeliest explanation is that it is part of the genetic coding which naturally enough is part of the process of evolution helping us to become less the animal and more the human.
Click to expand...
This statement is fraught with belief.

It's not the "likeliest" explanation. You have no basis for inferring probability in this case - you've done absolutely none of the research or exploration to determine what we do and do not know about this topic. You believe it to be true, thus you conclude that your belief is the most likely explanation. Morality and laws are NOT part of our genetic coding. There's waaaaaaay too much variation in law, in ethics, in morality across the globe for it to be even a tiny bit based in genetics.

And lastly... WE ARE ANIMALS. "Less animal and more human" is a flawed and fundamentally ignorant statement. It reflects your profound belief that humans are specially separate, through some external power, from those other, lesser animals. We are different from other creatures, just as those creatures are different from each other. But we're not "other". We are, however, very egocentric creatures who often want to feel that we're special unique snowflakes unlike any other snowflake on the planet.

Whether you want to acknowledge or recognize this fact, that belief that humans are special, that we're far separated from other beings on our planet, is a very theistic expression. Theism doesn't necessarily have to refer to a codified "god". Naturalistic religions are also considered theistic. The shared characteristic is a belief in some active agency that has influence over the natural world beyond the scope of science.

Any belief that there is a guiding force of some sort that acts outside the bounds of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. is a theistic belief.

It may not be your intent, it may be a lack of good alternative terminology to use. But the content of your posts, and the positions that you've assumed as true, indicate to me (and others) that you hold such belief.

Navigator said:
Now obviously such things can be corrupted, but we all some of us know this while other appear to turn a blind eye or justify it or use evolution as a reason to argue against it - because an apparently mindless process overrides anything which comes from the process, including morality and laws.

The only 'law' is 'survive' but tell me this...does the mindless process of evolution say that or do human beings say that?

Shall we steal another's wood because evolution says we must survive or shall we help each other work for the wood together and survive without casualty?

We get to choose. Justifying evil actions on account of it being good for ones survival does not make the evil action good
Click to expand...

I really don't think that any of us are *justifying* those actions. I think we pretty much all view that as being "evil". The only distinction here is that most of us take the position that the definition of what is evil is man-made - it's created by humans within the context of human society. We do not believe that a recognition of "evil" is innate, it's not genetic, it's not objective. That doesn't make it not evil though, at least not within the context of modern societal mores.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's tackle this from a different angle. Are humans born knowing a language? Do we come out of the womb speaking English?

No, we don't. We come out of the womb with 1) the capacity to learn and 2) a set of developmental triggers that prompt us to acquire language at a very early stage. But we don't already know language.
Click to expand...

It is the same angle I am coming from. The 'capacity' is the 'genetic imprint' and without it we wouldn't be able to develop - in the case of your example, the ability to learn and use language.

I am saying the same thing in regards to 'knowing' good from evil...the 'capacity' is there already - we are born with it...without it we wouldn't develop abilities in relation to these. Good or evil abilities...one evil ability is to justify an evil action as being good...(as in the case of the firewood being stolen because it helps the thief survive).

Like our complex language, our ability to know good from evil makes us different from other critters.

One argument I read recently went along the lines that evolution is about competition. This is not the case. Plainly we can see that plants and animals cooperate together - this ensures the best chance for survival of all. The critters might not know this but they have a 'knowing' about it which transcends language...and is seen in the action.

We know at least that some animals are intelligent - and we know this by their behavior.

We tend to look at behaviors of plants as being 'automated' which is to say - it appears intelligent but isn't - at least not according to the ones observing it and making that call.

It can be seen that the overall process is cooperation among species in relation to survival. There is no one species that is competing to be the only species - the 'one that survives over all the others because it 'stole all the wood.' so to speak.

There is no necessity to justify 'how to survive' because the process is more automated - still intelligent - but no need for committees and what have you.

The human is different but still the same - unavoidably part of the same process.

It is in the difference where the problems come to the fore. The human has the instinctive ability to know good from evil and can point to a spider trapping a fly and say 'therein is not evil.' and explain adequately why that is the case. No justification necessary. It is nature.

The argument from some in this subject in this thread is that the same applies to human behavior. "It is nature - it is natural'.

However, this argument is based on the belief that natural selection is all about competition for resource.

As far as I can tell this belief has more to do with 'Great Chain of Being' Pup mentioned earlier on in the thread . Competing for resources is unnatural - cooperating in relation to resources is natural. It is nature - it is natural.

The ability to inherently know good and evil is therefore recognizable in other species - and has been mentioned in this thread. Humans call it 'good' or 'evil' and it is about keeping the balance of the survival impulse...not upsetting the balance.

Keeping the balance - that is 'good' Upsetting the balance - that is 'evil'.

Humans appear to have wandered away from the balance and confused themselves with evil intent dressed up as good. They justify their actions as 'good' in relation to the other humans (regarded as expendable for reasons such as race, politics, religion, culture, gender, etc...) and compete for resource...

The argument that it is all natural and that we don't know any better and are simply following the demands of evolution, trying to survive etc et al are simply smoke screens which enable justification of horrific acts done in the name of 'good'.

Therefore the argument is evil because it promotes evil thinking which in turn promotes evil action.

The more natural way (following the example of nature) is cooperation. The wood be thief can survive by cooperating with his otherwise intended victim in relation to gathering wood and growing food etc...there is no justification for the thief to steal the wood saying that he had no choice because he had to 'survive'.


We all some of us know the act is evil.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I really don't think that any of us are *justifying* those actions. I think we pretty much all view that as being "evil". The only distinction here is that most of us take the position that the definition of what is evil is man-made - it's created by humans within the context of human society. We do not believe that a recognition of "evil" is innate, it's not genetic, it's not objective. That doesn't make it not evil though, at least not within the context of modern societal mores.
Click to expand...

Is it evil or "evil"?


Is there another name for it which you would rather use so that you don't have to feel uncomfortable with any expressions which remind you of theism?

I ask because you have adjusted the sail to tack a particular way so that you can argue a particular way which has nothing to do with what I am saying and that to me is baiting. Rather than be distracted by the bait, I prefer not to go there...
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Is it evil or "evil"?


Is there another name for it which you would rather use so that you don't have to feel uncomfortable with any expressions which remind you of theism?

I ask because you have adjusted the sail to tack a particular way so that you can argue a particular way which has nothing to do with what I am saying and that to me is baiting. Rather than be distracted by the bait, I prefer not to go there...
Click to expand...

Nobody is baiting you. You've been spewing a large amount of nearly incomprehensible beliefs, and claiming them as fact, then when anyone tries to correct any of the multitude of erroneous beliefs and misunderstandings under which you are laboring... you insist that they're misrepresenting you or baiting you.

I've tried being polite, I've been very professional in my interactions with you. So far, you refuse to engage in any meaningful manner.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited personalisation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Navigator said:
You have to learn everything. You have to learn to lack belief in gods.
Click to expand...

Boy have you got that arse about face backwards!:boggled:

Now listen carefully. Some of us have managed to reject belief in gods through the application of skeptical and critical thought. Believe in a god or gods that was drummed into our heads as children.

This way of thinking can be learned however, but you must be open to evidence, hard evidence, not anecdotal rubbish.
 
Thor 2 said:
Boy have you got that arse about face backwards!:boggled:
Click to expand...

Really? What about this then?

Now listen carefully. Some of us have managed to reject belief in gods through the application of skeptical and critical thought. Believe in a god or gods that was drummed into our heads as children.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about!

You have to learn everything. You have to learn to lack belief in gods.
 
Navigator said:
Really? What about this then?



That's what I am talking about!

You have to learn everything. You have to learn to lack belief in gods.
Click to expand...

I can understand the frustrations of the other members of the pack Navigator. You learn how to think, skeptically and critically, (that's in the bit you snipped off), and a loss of belief in gods naturally follows. There is a world of difference in this compared to what you are implying.
 
Thor 2 said:
I can understand the frustrations of the other members of the pack Navigator. You learn how to think, skeptically and critically, (that's in the bit you snipped off), and a loss of belief in gods naturally follows. There is a world of difference in this compared to what you are implying.
Click to expand...

Nope Thor...I snipped that bit off because it isn't relevant to the lack of belief in god in relation to learning.

snipped bit
This way of thinking can be learned however, but you must be open to evidence, hard evidence, not anecdotal rubbish.
Click to expand...

There is no 'hard evidence' for the non existence of god(s) because science does not (because it cannot) find the hard evidence to support the belief that god(s) do not exist. That is a purely hard atheist/anti-theist belief which has nothing to do with 'hard evidence' ...lack of evidence sure...but not evidence...you cannot get evidence and cannot even say what kind of evidence it might be which would convince you that god(s) exist. Your beliefs are therefore based on lack of hard evidence and you go with that.

I was (and still am) focused on the aspect of why humans even have the ability to formulate understanding of good and evil and I surmise that it is because it is in the nature of the human to do so...iow...inherent.

I am not focused so much on the political, social, religious et al dynamics of the argument as to what constitutes evil or good. I am focused on the hypocrisy related to those arguments and understand that evil is what they say it is, even as it is in their own actions as well as in the actions of those they point to as being evil.

I am focused on that confusion and how the belief that good and evil do not actually exist as real but only as 'whatever the conflicting sides happen to say it is' has a supporting role in this confusion/hypocrisy...
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
You have to learn everything. You have to learn to lack belief in gods.
Click to expand...
Do you also have to learn to lack being a smoker? Or learn to lack collecting stamps?

Perhaps you meant "You have to learn (about gods) to believe lack of gods"?

Theists like yourself commonly conflate “lack belief” and “believe lack”, or "not believe" and "believe not". Can you spot the differences? (you don't seem to be able to)
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Nope Thor...I snipped that bit off because it isn't relevant to the lack of belief in god in relation to learning.

snipped bit


There is no 'hard evidence' for the non existence of god(s) because science does not (because it cannot) find the hard evidence to support the belief that god(s) do not exist. That is a purely hard atheist/anti-theist belief which has nothing to do with 'hard evidence' ...lack of evidence sure...but not evidence...you cannot get evidence and cannot even say what kind of evidence it might be which would convince you that god(s) exist. Your beliefs are therefore based on lack of hard evidence and you go with that.
Click to expand...

Do we have to go over this again? I do not say there are definitely no gods, because I cannot prove it, in the same way that I cannot prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. The onus on proof is with the one who claims there are gods or fairies. My inclination is to reject belief in either and this has come about after skeptical analysis - yes something I learned to use.
 
Thor 2 said:
Do we have to go over this again? I do not say there are definitely no gods, because I cannot prove it, in the same way that I cannot prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. The onus on proof is with the one who claims there are gods or fairies. My inclination is to reject belief in either and this has come about after skeptical analysis - yes something I learned to use.
Click to expand...

Beyond that, Navigator is committing one of the most basic fallacies out there: absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence when the absence is where you would expect the evidence to be.

For example, if I claim that there is an elephant in a room, and someone opens the door to reveal that the room is empty, that is evidence that there is no elephant present.

We have proven, for all but the most cartoonishly laughable definitions of "proof", that no god ever worshiped by humans exists. More remote types of deity still technically aren't disproven, but there's still no good case that they exist, and concluding that they don't is entirely reasonable.
 
Thor 2 said:
Do we have to go over this again? I do not say there are definitely no gods, because I cannot prove it, in the same way that I cannot prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Click to expand...

To be sure. That you cannot does not mean that others cannot. Indeed others do implicitly claim that gods do not exist and it is a belief they feel justified in having...(not that that was the point I was making anyway)


The onus on proof is with the one who claims there are gods or fairies.
Click to expand...

If I asked you what a 'fairy' roughly looked like generally speaking, I assume you would be able to tell me.."well it is like a little person with wings"

However, if I asked you the same question about God, what answer could you give to me?

The reason I ask is because my comment about science and hard evidence et al has to do with this type of thing. What exactly IS the kind of evidence you would expect to be given as proof from anyone making such a claim?

Its complicated right?

Now if someone made the claim that god exists and they can prove it objectively then you have a legitimate expectancy to say that "the onus is on them to show the proof." Otherwise your expectancy in relation to science and objective evidence is a fallacy.

My inclination is to reject belief in either and this has come about after skeptical analysis - yes something I learned to use.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I have no idea of course what exactly your 'skeptical analysis' was that led you to rejecting the notion of god or fairies (other than, as it appears- you have seen neither and no one has been able to show you either) but in relation to gods, even the abrahamic one this thread you created re his 'purpose' what would you expect to see anyway, should you be shown?

Nonpareil said:
Beyond that, Navigator is committing one of the most basic fallacies out there: absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence when the absence is where you would expect the evidence to be.

For example, if I claim that there is an elephant in a room, and someone opens the door to reveal that the room is empty, that is evidence that there is no elephant present.

We have proven, for all but the most cartoonishly laughable definitions of "proof", that no god ever worshiped by humans exists. More remote types of deity still technically aren't disproven, but there's still no good case that they exist, and concluding that they don't is entirely reasonable.
Click to expand...

The same answer (and accompanying questions) I gave to Thor above, I give to your reasoning too Nonpareil.

We know what an elephant looks like. Can you tell me what abrahams god looks like?
 
Last edited:
I've gone back only five pages to clean up this thread, and split almost 50 posts to AAH as well as editing a few which remain in the thread. Some posts have been sent to AAH for derailing, some for combinations of 0/12 and some for responding to rule breaches. That's a signal to noise ratio of 5-1, and is completely unacceptable.

Allow me to remind you all that you are expected to stick to the topic (some drift is acceptable), to be both civil and polite, and to refrain from personalising your posts.

As a point of information, do not alter user-names unless given permission to do so, and please try not to refer to other posters in rude, sexist or condescending terms. These are not breaches of the MA per se, but are uncivil and so fall under rule 0.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom