Atheism And Moral Progress

[Stoic]

Better genes would be luck, the rest would depend on decision making - intention, not luck.

And the ability to make better decisions depends on luck.

[seer]

That's true in the same sense that the winner of an athletic contest is just lucky. Maybe he had better genes, or parents that pushed him harder, etc., but these things are all a matter of luck.

Better genes would be luck, the rest would depend on decision making - intention, not luck.

Usually, when we talk about why some species didn't survive, we're interested in more direct causes, like some other species outcompeting it, or the environment changing faster than it could adapt, etc.

True...

[Stoic]

Like I said, some species get lucky and most don't.

That's true in the same sense that the winner of an athletic contest is just lucky. Maybe he had better genes, or parents that pushed him harder, etc., but these things are all a matter of luck.

Usually, when we talk about why some species didn't survive, we're interested in more direct causes, like some other species outcompeting it, or the environment changing faster than it could adapt, etc.

[thormas]

You keep asserting that without evidence. Saying "survival of the fittest" has no meaning. Did some thing design this system of survival? Or did it come about by accident?




It didn't come from anywhere? Magic? And what created that process besides accidental happenstance?

It could be argued that particular actions or entire processes like evolution did not come from 'anywhere' if one means God, however it is still possible (and valid) to assert that God is the very possibility that anything at all is and is sustained in existence. One can assert this and not accept that God 'is in the details.' or 'intervenes' miraculously in the natural world.

[thormas]

No doubt the Christian colonists who slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of America or Australia and took their lands and destroyed their cultures did not believe that their acts were immoral at the time. They even justified such atrocities with quotes from scripture. But such behavior is recognized now as immoral behavior. And this is because moral values evolve and vary from culture to culture over time.

Actually there probably were some who believed their acts were immoral. From what I remember such remorse was part of the US soldier experience in some of the unnecessary and brutal extermination of Plains Indians.
However, as you said, some felt no remorse and justified their action (look at the Crusades) for God or blessed by scripture

[thormas]

Of course, there is no aim, or decision-making process in Evolution – this would suggest, without any evidence, that a ‘mind’ is at work guiding it all. But you are anthropomorphizing without ANY justification a perfectly natural process.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science. We know how it works, namely species that are best adapted to the natural environment are the ones that will survive. And if the natural environment changes they will either adapt via natural mutations or go extinct – as 99% of life on Earth has. IF, as you seem to believe, that 'god did it' he wasn't any good at it.

You are correct but thank the gods that 'Mind' empowered all to be in the first place:+}

[seer]

Of course, there is no aim, or decision-making process in Evolution – this would suggest, without any evidence, that a ‘mind’ is at work guiding it all. But you are anthropomorphizing without ANY justification a perfectly natural process.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science. We know how it works, namely species that are best adapted to the natural environment are the ones that will survive. And if the natural environment changes they will either adapt via natural mutations or go extinct – as 99% of life on Earth has. IF, as you seem to believe, that 'god did it' he wasn't any good at it.

Like I said, some species get lucky and most don't.

[seer]

No doubt the Christian colonists who slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of America or Australia and took their lands and destroyed their cultures did not believe that their acts were immoral at the time. They even justified such atrocities with quotes from scripture. But such behavior is recognized now as immoral behavior. And this is because moral values evolve and vary from culture to culture over time.

And why is our moral view "now" correct and their past view "wrong?" Based on what?

[seer]

No, it's not. How many times do you need that to be said to you?

You keep asserting that without evidence. Saying "survival of the fittest" has no meaning. Did some thing design this system of survival? Or did it come about by accident?

Survival of the fittest isn't an ability to have come from anywhere. It's a description of the natural process whereby the best fitted to an environment survive.

It didn't come from anywhere? Magic? And what created that process besides accidental happenstance?

[Tassman]

That makes no sense, the society or tribe that defeats the other tribe and takes their stuff does not believe their acts are immoral. You saying otherwise has no meaning.

No doubt the Christian colonists who slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of America or Australia and took their lands and destroyed their cultures did not believe that their acts were immoral at the time. They even justified such atrocities with quotes from scripture. But such behavior is recognized now as immoral behavior. And this is because moral values evolve and vary from culture to culture over time.

[Tassman]

Yes, and I know that there is no direction in evolution, no aim, no decision for or against survival. Some species just get lucky and other don't.

Of course, there is no aim, or decision-making process in Evolution – this would suggest, without any evidence, that a ‘mind’ is at work guiding it all. But you are anthropomorphizing without ANY justification a perfectly natural process.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science. We know how it works, namely species that are best adapted to the natural environment are the ones that will survive. And if the natural environment changes they will either adapt via natural mutations or go extinct – as 99% of life on Earth has. IF, as you seem to believe, that 'god did it' he wasn't any good at it.

[thormas]

WHich nobody has disputed. An element of chance does not equate to it being "just blind luck".

I always equated the two: happenstance is always blind.

[Electric Skeptic]

It is not blind luck that some species survive and others don't?

No, it's not. How many times do you need that to be said to you?

And where did this ability - survival of the fittest - come from? Did that ability come about by blind luck?

Survival of the fittest isn't an ability to have come from anywhere. It's a description of the natural process whereby the best fitted to an environment survive.

[Electric Skeptic]

But even the fittest among us are subject to happenstance.

WHich nobody has disputed. An element of chance does not equate to it being "just blind luck".

[thormas]

It is not blind luck that some species survive and others don't? And where did this ability - survival of the fittest - come from? Did that ability come about by blind luck?

Actually if a tree falls in the forest and the alpha of a surviving and thriving special is under it: happenstance. Wrong place at the wrong time and ..........splat. Sometimes luck is deaf, dumb and blind or simply bad.