Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ted Kirkpatrick and Animal Cruelty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    http://progressivechristianity.org/

    There ya go. (I know, I know, they're not REAL Christians)
    Which is why they should stop calling themselves that.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Well, I'm certainly not a "progressive Christian", whatever that is. I'm also fairly certain that most Christians would not self-identify as such, but feel free to offer contrary evidence."
    http://progressivechristianity.org/

    There ya go. (I know, I know, they're not REAL Christians)

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Psychology is not biology.
    Inasmuch as psychology encompasses behaviour it is a component of biology and certainly our evolved natural instincts are biology.

    This explains what happens, not why it came about.
    Yes it explains “what happens”. And “why” can only refer to a reason or explanation in science, NOT ‘purpose’. There is no “purpose” as such.

    Why should there be a 'survival instinct'?
    "Should" has nothing to do with it. But it’s demonstrably true that there is a survival instinct. Ever tried to swat a fly?

    And why should it predispose us toward cooperative behaviour?
    It’s demonstrably true that all social species are thus predisposed. That’s the very definition of “social species”, i.e. animals which interact highly with others of their own species, to the point of having a recognizable society.

    Cooperation takes two (or more) for success.
    …and “two or more” social animals are predisposed toward cooperative behaviour. Among social species they all are. That’s what being a social animal is by definition. You really have an abysmal understanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.

    If I have this phantom cooperation mutation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some genetic basis for instinct)
    Given that Instincts are innate, fixed patterns of behaviour how would they not have a “genetic basis”?

    and my companions do not, by helping them I'm increasing their chances for survival, not mine.
    Group survival, not individual survival, is the raison d’ętre of social species. Individual acts of self-sacrifice for the good of one’s community or family are not uncommon whereas individual acts of selfishness are not viewed favourably by the group.

    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    To whag

    I am indeed a creationist.
    Ah well, you already have your conclusions don't you? Any pesky contradictory evidence can thus be hand waved away as an act of faith.
    Last edited by Tassman; 12-13-2014, 11:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Well, I'm certainly not a "progressive Christian", whatever that is. I'm also fairly certain that most Christians would not self-identify as such, but feel free to offer contrary evidence. I'm also sensing some circular reasoning in your bald assertion that "most smart Christians don't have a problem with the development of Eusociality." I am indeed a creationist. If that makes me 'fringe' in your view, perhaps you need to revisit your definition of 'fringe.' I'm guessing that qualification for MENSA membership makes me not dumb, but OTOH I don't know that you're operating with a typical definition of smart. I'm beginning to suspect that "smart" in your world means "agrees with whag."
    So you don't accept evolution?

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    IOW, THE DEVELOPMENT OF eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUSOCIALITY, so you look fringe.

    Fixed it for ya, and you still look fringe. Only creationists call godit/evodidit a false dichotomy. Progressive Christians sure don't have a problem with cooperative behavior evolving. How else do you think it came about?

    I'm guessing you're an anti-evolutionist?
    Well, I'm certainly not a "progressive Christian", whatever that is. I'm also fairly certain that most Christians would not self-identify as such, but feel free to offer contrary evidence. I'm also sensing some circular reasoning in your bald assertion that "most smart Christians don't have a problem with the development of Eusociality." I am indeed a creationist. If that makes me 'fringe' in your view, perhaps you need to revisit your definition of 'fringe.' I'm guessing that qualification for MENSA membership makes me not dumb, but OTOH I don't know that you're operating with a typical definition of smart. I'm beginning to suspect that "smart" in your world means "agrees with whag."
    Last edited by One Bad Pig; 12-13-2014, 10:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    IOW, you have no answer, so you deliberately misconstrue my position as opposing the idea of eusociality rather than the putative rationale for the evolution of such. I did find this exercise in mental gymnastics interesting, but it replaces one untestable (and demonstrated to be such) hypothesis with another. The "how" is most certainly "speculative hoo-ha."
    IOW, THE DEVELOPMENT OF eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUSOCIALITY, so you look fringe.

    Fixed it for ya, and you still look fringe. Only creationists call godit/evodidit a false dichotomy. Progressive Christians sure don't have a problem with cooperative behavior evolving. How else do you think it came about?

    I'm guessing you're an anti-evolutionist?

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    That's so hugely off topic, I can't forgive it. "Proof" is a strawman--or you really don't know the difference between proof and evidence. Again, what better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence? We know biology and behavior develop, so it certainly isn't the speculative hoo-ha you're implying it is.

    IOW, eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with it, so you look fringe.
    IOW, you have no answer, so you deliberately misconstrue my position as opposing the idea of eusociality rather than the putative rationale for the evolution of such. I did find this exercise in mental gymnastics interesting, but it replaces one untestable (and demonstrated to be such) hypothesis with another. The "how" is most certainly "speculative hoo-ha."

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Extrapolation is useful if one can establish a relationship between what you know and what you don't.
    That's precisely how it's used.


    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Right now, all I see is unproven assumption, with evolutiondidit replacing goddidit. I find it interesting that modern science came about because belief in the Christian/Jewish God engendered a belief that the universe was rationally designed and thus could be systematically investigated, and now many people are convinced that the universe came to be from random chance, yet still can be systematically investigated. Sorry for going so far off topic.
    That's so hugely off topic, I can't forgive it. "Proof" is a strawman--or you really don't know the difference between proof and evidence. Again, what better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence? We know biology and behavior develop, so it certainly isn't the speculative hoo-ha you're implying it is.

    IOW, eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with it, so you look fringe.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    1. Extrapolation is a useful function in science. 2. What's the problem of extrapolating the natural development of eusociality? What better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence?
    Extrapolation is useful if one can establish a relationship between what you know and what you don't. Right now, all I see is unproven assumption, with evolutiondidit replacing goddidit. I find it interesting that modern science came about because belief in the Christian/Jewish God engendered a belief that the universe was rationally designed and thus could be systematically investigated, and now many people are convinced that the universe came to be from random chance, yet still can be systematically investigated. Sorry for going so far off topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Psychology is not biology.

    This explains what happens, not why it came about.

    Why should there be a 'survival instinct'? And why should it predispose us toward cooperative behaviour? Cooperation takes two (or more) for success. If I have this phantom cooperation mutation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some genetic basis for instinct) and my companions do not, by helping them I'm increasing their chances for survival, not mine.
    1. Extrapolation is a useful function in science. 2. What's the problem of extrapolating the natural development of eusociality? What better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence?
    Last edited by whag; 12-13-2014, 06:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    I suggest you do a crash course in Natural Selection. It remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution and is accepted as undisputed fact by virtually every scientist worldwide. It is the foundation of modern biology.
    Psychology is not biology.
    Because of the well understood phenomenon of ‘biological altruism’ whereby examples are found even “among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed. Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures”.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
    This explains what happens, not why it came about.
    No I'm not. The ‘survival instinct’ is the driving force of the evolutionary process and well supported by the evidence. It’s a characteristic of every living organism. In our case, and that of all social species, it predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour as a survival mechanism.
    Why should there be a 'survival instinct'? And why should it predispose us toward cooperative behaviour? Cooperation takes two (or more) for success. If I have this phantom cooperation mutation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some genetic basis for instinct) and my companions do not, by helping them I'm increasing their chances for survival, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    You've asserted that already. Proving such is another matter entirely.
    I suggest you do a crash course in Natural Selection. It remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution and is accepted as undisputed fact by virtually every scientist worldwide. It is the foundation of modern biology.

    I'm not referring to "why" in that sense. Why would two organisms spontaneously cooperate?
    Because of the well understood phenomenon of ‘biological altruism’ whereby examples are found even “among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed. Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures”.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

    And in doing so, you are extrapolating, for the reason I mentioned before.
    No I'm not. The ‘survival instinct’ is the driving force of the evolutionary process and well supported by the evidence. It’s a characteristic of every living organism. In our case, and that of all social species, it predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour as a survival mechanism.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    “How” we have become a social species is due to random favourable mutations over very long periods of time.
    You've asserted that already. Proving such is another matter entirely.
    There is no “why”, in the sense of purpose-directed evolution, merely the chance outcome of favourable mutations.
    I'm not referring to "why" in that sense. Why would two organisms spontaneously cooperate?
    I'm not extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm. I'm referring to the evolved natural instinct of 'survival' which, in the case of a social species like us, predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour. In short, for our species, cooperative social behaviour is a survival mechanism.
    And in doing so, you are extrapolating, for the reason I mentioned before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    Read Temple Grandin. This is pretty basic stuff.
    Yes, the humane handling of livestock is what it’s all about and Temple Grandin is an inspiring advocate. The movie with Claire Danes as Temple Grandin is pretty good too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    From observation, we indeed know that we are a social species. Observation does not tell us why or how we are a social species, however.
    “How” we have become a social species is due to random favourable mutations over very long periods of time. There is no “why”, in the sense of purpose-directed evolution, merely the chance outcome of favourable mutations.

    I am familiar with the general theory of evolution via natural selection, thanks. You're extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm, which is chancy because we don't have a very good grasp of how those interrelate.
    I'm not extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm. I'm referring to the evolved natural instinct of 'survival' which, in the case of a social species like us, predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour. In short, for our species, cooperative social behaviour is a survival mechanism.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
38 responses
225 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by Alien, 03-31-2022, 02:43 PM
1,956 responses
10,540 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X