Re: Where Do Darwinist Atheists Get Their Moral Values?

On 12 mei, 16:29, Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:15=C2=A0am, "pba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<pba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 mei, 16:21, Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 3:06=EF=BF=BDpm, James A. Donald <jam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
>
> > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD --
> > > > James A. Donald
>
> > > > > > We are a pack animal. =EF=BF=BDOur mode of survival requires
> > > > > > collaboration with others. =EF=BF=BDWe therefore prefer to
> > > > > > collaborate with those that seem unlikely to cut our
> > > > > > throats, and need to persuade others we are unlikely
> > > > > > to cut their throats.
>
> > > > > > "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a
> > > > > > willingness to harm friends, associates and random
> > > > > > innocents in the general vicinity, "evil acts" are
> > > > > > acts indicative of such propensity.
>
> > > > veritas
>
> > > > > I still have a problem with that theory. =EF=BF=BDThere is no
> > > > > group of people, no society in the world that does not
> > > > > have a religion. =EF=BF=BDThat indicates that we are born with
> > > > > a certain set of genes that guides our morals.
>
> > > > No, it indicates that we are born with a propensity to
> > > > believe in conscious action and conscious causes even
> > > > when that consciousness is not there, for much the same
> > > > evolutionary reasons as we are born with a propensity to
> > > > see faces even in random shapes that do not look much
> > > > like faces.
>
> > > > We are *also* and quite independently, born with genes
> > > > that guide our moral judgment (for the reasons I gave
> > > > above - people are potentially dangerous) but morality,
> > > > justice, and right conduct has nothing to do with
> > > > religion. =EF=BF=BDThe spirits of most primitive religions are
> > > > amoral and for the most part actively hostile to humans.
> > > > Most primitive religions are a collection of
> > > > superstitions for avoiding things that might supposedly
> > > > draw the attention of the spirits. =EF=BF=BDThe objective of
> > > > most primitive rituals is to persuade the spirits to
> > > > stay away.
>
> > > > To the extent that religion addresses morality, it is
> > > > actively hostile to what is right and just.
>
> > > > People who claim to represent the Gods and speak on
> > > > behalf of the Gods are usually wicked people, who do
> > > > wicked things, which they claim are virtuous things,
> > > > because their God supposedly made them do it. =EF=BF=BDFurther,
> > > > they attribute to their God responsibility for anything
> > > > that impresses and frightens people, so their God
> > > > supposedly does wicked things, which they need to claim
> > > > are virtuous things.
>
> > > > This is particularly apparent in religions that require
> > > > human sacrifice - for example the Aztec religion,
> > > > environmentalism, and Allah wor****p. =EF=BF=BDChristianity is
> > > > considerably less dreadful, having originated in an
> > > > effort to rehabilitate the disturbingly racist,
> > > > wrathful, and genocidal god of the old testament, but it
> > > > is merely a more innocuous form of the disease, as
> > > > vaccina is a comparatively harmless form of smallpox.
>
> > > > > As for "evil", there is no evil, as there is no "good".
=EF=BF=BD
>
> > > > To make such an assertion after the events of the twentieth
> > > > century is ludicrous.
> > > > --
> > > > =EF=BF=BD ----------------------
> > > > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > > > of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> > > > right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> > > >http://www.jim.com/=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
=EF=BF=BDJames A. Donald
>
> > > "Genes that guide our moral judgment" is just silly, except in the
> > > limited sense that we have individual predispositions to find some
> > > things pleasurable or not.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet
weer=
geven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> > Why would it be silly?
> > Much animal behaviout seems to be gentically predetermened.
> > Why wouldn't surivival of the fittest, benefit, genes that make
> > "moral" behviour more likely within social animals?
> > "Moral" is only the kind of behaviour that benefits others inside the
> > social group instead of the individual only.
> > Without "moral" behaviour there wouldn't be any social animals,
> > and humanity would have become extinct before it ever came into
> > being :-)
>
> > Peter van Velzen
> > May 2008
> > Amstelveen
> > The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You're just combining words, whether or not they go together.
=C2=A0There
> is no actual issue here to discuss, so talking about it just so much
> blather.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Apperantly you fail to understand the meaning of my words.
So I will put it more simply:

1. Morals are essentially a special type of behaviour
2. Behaviour can lead to more or less offspring
3 (1+2) Morals can lead to more or less offspring
4. Evolution is the resullt of survival of offspring
5 (3+4) Morals will evolve.

Clear?

If not, go back to school :-)

Best to you.

Peter van Velzen
May 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands