The Strong Horse

[Method]

Yes, so survival of the group is all that matters in the end. So what ISIL is doing may be a good evolutionary strategy. Nothing wrong with that - right.

How populations evolve has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral.

[shunyadragon]

Then your opinion of ISIS' acts is no more valid than theirs. The only thing that matters is who wins, it's all, Red of Tooth and Claw

IF Red of Tooth and Claw dominates, the human species would likely perish, as with ALL species. ALL cultures at one time or another committed unbelievably immoral atrocities including Christian cultures. There is no evidence that any culture is more moral and nonviolent then any other, other then possibly Buddhist cultures. The system of morals and ethics in human societies is a necessary factor in the survival of the human species.

In my world there are things that are unnatural to the human being, that violates the purpose which we were created for. In your world it is all natural, no act, in the end, is objectively more moral or immoral. And in my world there is final justice. In your world there is no justice - a Hitler has the same end as a Mother Teresa. In my world human beings have inherent worth, in your world human beings have no more inherent world than a housefly.

The human world is dominated by systems of morals and ethics necessary for human survival regardless. If Hitler's dominate we do not survive. If Mother Teresa's and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's dominate we survive.

[Roy]

That in a godless universe the only thing that matters is survival (of the individual or group).

Why does survival matter?

Roy

[lilpixieofterror]

People tend to look for simple answers in a complex world. Religion provides simple answers. That's what it's for.

Yep, because Aquinas' 5 ways is sooo simple and soo easy to understand that phank will explain them to everybody here and tell everybody why they are so simple and wrong. Keep showing why you're the Jorge of the skeptic community around these parts.

[lilpixieofterror]

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse” Osama bin Laden

ISIS is gaining converts from the Middle East to India, to Central Europe to Britain to Western Europe. They seek a world wide caliphate and there is no guarantee that we will stop them. They may in fact win and take the world. Not only are they more aggressive and determined, in Europe the Muslims are reproducing at higher rates than the white Europeans. Is this not the evolutionary process in action? Or rather how is it any different in kind to this:



http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ggression.html

I don't think it has to do with evolution as it has to do with society.

[phank]

Yep, because Aquinas' 5 ways is sooo simple and soo easy to understand that phank will explain them to everybody here and tell everybody why they are so simple and wrong. Keep showing why you're the Jorge of the skeptic community around these parts.

Ah, here's little miss "can't address the claim, so attack the claimant". Do you EVER get tired of this?

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah, here's little miss "can't address the claim, so attack the claimant". Do you EVER get tired of this?

Irony at it's finest. Sorry, but I addressed your claim quite well. You claimed 'religion provides simple answers' and I demonstrated that it does not anymore 'always provide simple answers' than anything else is 'always simple'. Are there simple religious answers? Sure, but there is also simple scientific answers too. You're the one that over generalized, so don't get mad at me that I showed your over generalization is easily false and easy to demonstrate as being false at that. Anyway, I take it that you're unable to explain how 'simple' Aquinas 5 ways are and even if it was 'simple' how that would demonstrate it was wrong. I wasn't aware that the simplicity of the answer, is a demonstration that it is wrong. Your entire argument, from start to finish, was totally false phank and I just added in the part about you being the atheist version of Jorge because that is how your own fellow skeptics have often compared you as being. Not my fault that you let your hate of religion drive your conclusions.

[rogue06]

That in a godless universe the only thing that matters is survival (of the individual or group). The means are irrelevant. And there is nothing moral or immoral about the process no matter how brutal. It is no more moral or immoral than what the northern chimpanzees did to the southern chimpanzees. As a matter of fact what northern chimpanzees did was very successful - in the sense of what finally matters, survival of the individual or group. That is no more moral or immoral that what ISIS is trying to do.

It appears that you are starting your premise by employing a false dichotomy -- if there is evolution then its a "godless universe." All the Theory of Evolution does is explain how things are.

In many respects your argument differs little from those who declare that there is no God because their is suffering and death in the world

[phank]

It appears that you are starting your premise by employing a false dichotomy -- if there is evolution then its a "godless universe." All the Theory of Evolution does is explain how things are.

In many respects your argument differs little from those who declare that there is no God because their is suffering and death in the world

I think this is a misrepresentation. I have seen claims that IF there is a god, that god does not conform to the Christian description because the suffering and death is incompatible with that description. But the actual argument is that, while any number of gods might exist, none of them are needed to explain anything.

[klaus54]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Please do not post in this thread. Thanks.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[phank]

Suffering and death in nature is TOTALLY compatible with Christianity because of the suffering of God incarnate in Jesus Christ.

I didn't say it wasn't compatible. I said that I have seen people writing "if your god exists, why is there so much suffering in the world? If your god is kind and caring, how about THIS and THAT atrocity?" Notice that I'm not the one making this argument. I'm the one saying I have seen it made.

Please stop spouting your theological ignorance in the Natural Science forum.

Sorry, but I'll paraphrase other people when it's appropriate.

And seer, please spouting your theological AND scientific ignorance in the Natural Science forum.

It's a toss up as to which of you is best at category errors, but I'm leaning toward seer.

I think you might need to back up and read more carefully. When I write "I have seen claims", you can take it as a working hypothesis that I have seen claims.

THEN, I went on to point out that I think this argument is wrong, and presented what I regard as a better argument.

(And I won't comment too much about the beam in your own eye.)

[jordanriver]

I think this is a misrepresentation. I have seen claims that IF there is a god, that god does not conform to the Christian description because the suffering and death is incompatible with that description.

I would have a harder time answering, that if the Christian God does exist, why haven't Las Vegas and San Francisco, and Hollywood, and , (well, probably most of America) gone up in a blaze of fire and brimstone.

[klaus54]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Edited

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Suffering and death in nature is TOTALLY compatible with Christianity because of the suffering of God incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Please stop spouting your theological ignorance in the Natural Science forum.

And seer, please spouting your theological AND scientific ignorance in the Natural Science forum.

It's a toss up as to which of you is best at category errors, but I'm leaning toward seer.

K54

I believe in God, but yes, plank's argument carries weight when the archaic attempt to explain very natural and explainable suffering and death through science, and the response is explaining suffering and death from the ancient literature describing the Fall, Original Sin, and because 'of the suffering of God incarnate Jesus Christ.'

If your going to complain about arguing theology in Natural Science, you are responding with a theistic argument, and half the thread posted should not be here.

[klaus54]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Edited

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.