Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Teallaura]

Reading not your strong suit, is it? Unproven assumption - unprovable assumption - and really stupid attempt to burn straw.

Try again - scroll up and read what I actually wrote.

[Tassman]

Reading not your strong suit, is it? Unproven assumption - unprovable assumption - and really stupid attempt to burn straw.

What part of the archaeological and paleontological evidence that our primitive ancestors lived in community are you disputing?

[Teallaura]

What part of the archaeological and paleontological evidence that our primitive ancestors lived in community are you disputing?

What part of that has diddly to do with the unproven assumption? That's right - none of it.

Still haven't read the post, have you?

[JimL]

That conclusion cannot be proven - or even shown to be probably true. Humans both love and hate - nurture and kill. There's no way to know what a proto-society would have come up with - would they have extended trust outside their immediate clans? Would they have killed or banished young males before they reached age sufficient to challenge the alpha male? Would they have learned to work together or would they have learned to kill each other on sight.

Your assumption that God does not exist leads to the conclusion that they did learn to work together - but it hangs on an unproven assumption. There's no way to actually test the hypothesis - you'd have to have a universe in which God is proven conclusively not to exist to even run the experiment.

Your conclusion stated above is a statement of belief - nothing more.

The problem with the above assertion is that Human beings did do all of those things, both love hate-nurture and kill, worked together and killed each other etc etc., so god had nothing to do with the development of their moral systems, had nothing to do with their morality, their morals came about as a result of their learning which behaviors served their best interests as human beings living together. Whats the unprovable assumption in that?

[Tassman]

That conclusion cannot be proven - or even shown to be probably true. Humans both love and hate - nurture and kill. There's no way to know what a proto-society would have come up with - would they have extended trust outside their immediate clans? Would they have killed or banished young males before they reached age sufficient to challenge the alpha male? Would they have learned to work together or would they have learned to kill each other on sight.

It can be seen among our fellow primates today. They understand the behaviour which is acceptable or unacceptable within the group. Our own primitive ancestors would not have been much different. We know they lived in groups which in turn necessitates rules of behaviour.

Your assumption that God does not exist leads to the conclusion that they did learn to work together - but it hangs on an unproven assumption. There's no way to actually test the hypothesis - you'd have to have a universe in which God is proven conclusively not to exist to even run the experiment.

They did not

Your conclusion stated above is a statement of belief - nothing more.

Quite the reverse! Your resistance is standard Christian denial of whatever contradicts your religious presuppositions.

[Teallaura]

The problem with the above assertion is that Human beings did do all of those things, both love hate-nurture and kill, worked together and killed each other etc etc., so god had nothing to do with the development of their moral systems, had nothing to do with their morality, their morals came about as a result of their learning which behaviors served their best interests as human beings living together. Whats the unprovable assumption in that?

You assume the non-existence of God - it's necessary to the conclusion. You have to have a universe in which God is proven not to exist before you can prove the conclusion - otherwise, you DON'T know if humans alone are even capable of learning behaviors which serve their best interests - and human history is littered with examples of humans doing the exact opposite.

You have to first PROVE God does not exist - otherwise, it rests on the unproven assumption that God does not exist and it is NOTHING but a statement of belief.

[Teallaura]

It can be seen among our fellow primates today. They understand the behaviour which is acceptable or unacceptable within the group. Our own primitive ancestors would not have been much different. We know they lived in groups which in turn necessitates rules of behaviour.



They did not

Still merely a statement of belief - you haven't dealt with the actual problem. The underlying, necessary assumption is unproven and unprovable.

[JimL]

You assume the non-existence of God - it's necessary to the conclusion. You have to have a universe in which God is proven not to exist before you can prove the conclusion - otherwise, you DON'T know if humans alone are even capable of learning behaviors which serve their best interests - and human history is littered with examples of humans doing the exact opposite.

You have to first PROVE God does not exist - otherwise, it rests on the unproven assumption that God does not exist and it is NOTHING but a statement of belief.

No, it isn't necessary to my conclusion, god or no god, all you need is for there to be a world with options and the ability to choose between them.

[Teallaura]

No, it isn't necessary to my conclusion, god or no god, all you need is for there to be a world with options and the ability to choose between them.

Yes, it is necessary - your original statement was that you didn't need God because this happened. That is a statement of belief, not of fact.

[JimL]

Yes, it is necessary - your original statement was that you didn't need God because this happened. That is a statement of belief, not of fact.

Your assertion about what is wrong with my conclusion is that in order for human beings to derive from the world in which they live the morals/behaviors that are in their best interests, a god is necessary. Please explain the reasoning behind that assertion.

[Tassman]

You assume the non-existence of God - it's necessary to the conclusion.

God is irrelevant in a discussion about evolved behaviour based upon observation and archeological evidence.

You have to have a universe in which God is proven not to exist before you can prove the conclusion

- otherwise, you DON'T know if humans alone are even capable of learning behaviors

We see examples of learnt behaviour among all the primates including us, no gods necessary.

- which serve their best interests - and human history is littered with examples of humans doing the exact opposite.

You have to first PROVE God does not exist - otherwise, it rests on the unproven assumption that God does not exist and it is NOTHING but a statement of belief.

Still merely a statement of belief - you haven't dealt with the actual problem. The underlying, necessary assumption is unproven and unprovable.

There is "no actual problem". See above.

[JimL]

Nicely put. If she doesn't get that, she isn't trying.

[Teallaura]

Originally Posted by JimL
Morality is from the group, so to speak, because it is inculcated to its members, but it is objective in the fact that when adopted as a moral law it works to the best interests of the group and its members.

<Inigo Montoya voice> You keep using that word but I don't think that word means what you think it means.</Inigo Montoya voice>

There's no possible way that works out to 'objective' - especially when you toss 'best interest' in there.

It is my opinion, and I think you are wrong. We human beings live in this world, are a part of this world, and as such there are certain behaviors that are best suited to our lives and our survival as a social species. One could argue, as I suppose you would, that murder for instance is immoral, not for any particular reason related to the well being of society and the members thereof, that it is simply the objective command of a creator, but the only real reason for that belief is because you believe in a creator in the first place, theres no logic to it, it just is, and I think that the effect morals have on human beings and human society is a perfectly logical reason to adopt them as morals. The notion that morals have an objective existence of their own, apart from human beings, is not a logical conclusion, it is just a belief conclusion.

*emphasis mine

Above is the original set of quotations, in order (the last being a response to the quotation from me immediately above it)

Your conclusion is also 'just a belief conclusion' because it has the unproven assumption that God doesn't exist - without that assumption, you've no basis to conclude that humans derived morality all by their lonesomes, as you clearly do.

You can, of course, argue the possibility - but that's all you really have here or can have. At the end of the day, the conclusion hinges on an assumption that you accept but cannot prove - so it's sufficient for your own purposes but is a mere statement of belief to all others.

You might try examining your own logic before asserting the weaknesses of the logic of others - in this case, your conclusion suffers necessarily from the same exact problem you were deriding in Christians.

[Tassman]

Your conclusion is also 'just a belief conclusion' because it has the unproven assumption that God doesn't exist

- without that assumption, you've no basis to conclude that humans derived morality all by their lonesomes, as you clearly do.

[Teallaura]

Logic not your strong suit, is it? You're arguing the conclusion - the problem is you can't both get there from here because of the underlying assumption.