Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[Tassman]

At least if we were determined by God we would be determined by a rational being, instead of the blind, non-rational forces of nature.

And yet, of all species that have existed during the 4-billion-years of life on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Doesn’t seem very rational to me. Conversely, there IS considerable evidence supporting natural selection shaping humans into a highly social, cooperative species with self-imposed rules of morality. That is until we too perish as the 6^th great extinction accelerates.

[Machinist]

At least if we were determined by God we would be determined by a rational being, instead of the blind, non-rational forces of nature.

And that is what compels me. Thank you.

[seer]

As opposed to “being determined by the forces” of an omniscient, omnipotent deity you mean?

At least if we were determined by God we would be determined by a rational being, instead of the blind, non-rational forces of nature.

[Tassman]

What are you talking about - everything, including the desire to survive, societies, cooperation, moral ideals, etc...are created and determined by the forces of nature. There is nothing else in your world.

As opposed to “being determined by the forces” of an omniscient, omnipotent deity you mean?

“The desire to survive, and cooperation and moral ideals, etc...” were NOT “created”. That would presuppose a “creator” with a purpose. But there’s no good evidence of such an entity.

Conversely, there IS considerable evidence supporting ‘natural selection’ shaping humans (and other advanced species) into highly social, cooperative species adhering to ‘rules of behavior’ so as to enhance survival

[Stoic]

There is still a disconnect. A leap has been made from the forces of nature to morality. I understand that you are saying they are a byproduct. Even so a leap has still been made and it is a disconnect.

The disconnect is bridged by natural selection.

[seer]

Just noticed this nonsense.

The “forces of nature” are NOT dictating moral ideals. Morality is a byproduct of evolution and arose as natural selection shaped humans into a highly social, cooperative species to enhance survival - self-preservation being a universal trait among all living creatures.

What are you talking about - everything, including the desire to survive, societies, cooperation, moral ideals, etc...are created and determined by the forces of nature. There is nothing else in your world.

[Machinist]

Just noticed this nonsense.

The “forces of nature” are NOT dictating moral ideals. Morality is a byproduct of evolution and arose as natural selection shaped humans into a highly social, cooperative species to enhance survival - self-preservation being a universal trait among all living creatures.

There is still a disconnect. A leap has been made from the forces of nature to morality. I understand that you are saying they are a byproduct. Even so a leap has still been made and it is a disconnect.

[Tassman]

Then at bottom it is the forces of nature dictating your moral ideals, yet said forces do not aim or care for such things. How is it that we care about such things when were were determined by forces that don't. There seems to be a serious disconnect here.

Just noticed this nonsense.

The “forces of nature” are NOT dictating moral ideals. Morality is a byproduct of evolution and arose as natural selection shaped humans into a highly social, cooperative species to enhance survival - self-preservation being a universal trait among all living creatures.

[seer]

Okay...

Well, I don't really have anything new to add either, so I suggest we table the discussion.

Thanks for the civil discussion! It was enjoyable...

[Stoic]

Except your rational argument is based on a falsehood, since no determined act is worthy of blame or praise in reality...

The magic thing was a quote from Harris, I just embellished.

Then at bottom it is the forces of nature dictating your moral ideals, yet said forces do not aim or care for such things. How is it that we care about such things when were were determined by forces that don't. There seems to be a serious disconnect here.

That would only apply if you can demonstrate that consciousness is in fact an emergent property. And at this point there is no reason to think it is. As Harris said, emergence in this case does not even work in principle. And in this case why would an emergent property be moral?

Okay...

Well, I don't really have anything new to add either, so I suggest we table the discussion.

[Tassman]

[I]

It's not a feeling. It's observable in the language... plain as day.

Your “unmistakable watermark” pointing to an “absolute standard of morality” is subjective and unverifiable. It's a faith - belief.

[Machinist]

I not sure that an emergent property would be concerned about anything. And as far as I know all others creatures survive just fine without conceptual moral ideals.

I'm just playing devils advocate here. It's an interesting subject.

I also would imagine that there would be various levels and types of complexity of emergence across all species. A property of emergence that humans have that animals don't have for instance would be an egoic self awareness. Emergence I believe is the same as saying the we as humans are God, and all the universe and everything in it is God. This is why I never understood why atheists seem to reject any notion of transcendence. You either have a Self Existent Eternal God, or you have Emergence.

[seer]

I would imagine that an emergent property would be concerned for it's survival. And if so, having a sense of morality would ensure it's survival better than not having one.

Or maybe not so much "concerned" but rather having the property of the intent to continue existing.

I not sure that an emergent property would be concerned about anything. And as far as I know all others creatures survive just fine without conceptual moral ideals.

[Machinist]

And in this case why would an emergent property be moral?

I would imagine that an emergent property would be concerned for it's survival. And if so, having a sense of morality would ensure it's survival better than not having one.

Or maybe not so much "concerned" but rather having the property of the intent to continue existing.

[seer]

Of course, it's not the whole story. As I said before, praise and blame can be considered simple expressions of emotion. I was just explaining how they can also be rationally justified.

Except your rational argument is based on a falsehood, since no determined act is worthy of blame or praise in reality...

It's kind of a magic wand against your argument, which makes use of the fallacy of composition.

Human consciousness may turn out to not be an emergent property. But you can't really assume that it isn't.

The magic thing was a quote from Harris, I just embellished.

There is no good reason to believe that anything breaks out of cause and effect determinism. That's kind of why we're having this discussion.

Then at bottom it is the forces of nature dictating your moral ideals, yet said forces do not aim or care for such things. How is it that we care about such things when were were determined by forces that don't. There seems to be a serious disconnect here.

That's not a good reason. Because... fallacy.

That would only apply if you can demonstrate that consciousness is in fact an emergent property. And at this point there is no reason to think it is. As Harris said, emergence in this case does not even work in principle. And in this case why would an emergent property be moral?