by dorayakii 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
The Dawkins: "Evolution is selfish, and everything comes solely from evolution--including all things human."
Objector: "Well but look! Here is an example of a genuine act of altruism!"
The Dawkins: "Errrm. That's just where evolution fucked up."
Something tells me that the Dawkins would never act based on an evolutionary "misfire".
BTS
Dawkins says a supreme act of love and goodness is an evolutionary misfire. What a freak.
1. I'd appreciate no personal insults on my thread please. Just a civilised debate/discussion.
2. That was a paraphrase of a whole chapter of Dawkins work, in my own words.
3. Remember, the distastefulness of an idea does not affect its veracity. Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't make it more or less true.
Miguel de Unamuno said, (quoted by BTS)
"An isolated individual can endure life and live it well and even heroically without in any sort believing either in the immortality of the soul or in God, but he lives the life of a spiritual parasite."
This is absolute crap. He has got his chronology backwards. Man is innately moral for pragmatic reasons as others have pointed out above. Organized superstition ("religion") emraced and formalized 'morality' and threw in a few rules of their own. Religion is the "spiritual parasite". Organized religion hijacked morality to package with it's control program.
dorayakii
When I say "I'm totally depraved" I'm referring to my ability to please God.
If we are depraved sinners, why can atheists of all people be among the most kind of people.
I refer to this as common grace. It is by God's common grace that we do some good things (many times for the wrong reasons).
Can we find provable, scientific reasons to keep the moral precepts of society without resorting to claiming that goodness or evil are somehow innate? Why are they innate?
The problem here is not that we can't agree on moral precepts. It's that if we are honest, we know that we cheat or fall short.
Why are humans inherently good?
I still don't believe we are.
Dorayakii ... of the " almost 4am here in Japan, so going to bed " class.
Sleep well my friend.
1. I'd appreciate no personal insults on my thread please. Just a civilised debate/discussion.
I have not engaged in any personal insults. As for calling Dawkins a freak, he obviously is.
2. That was a paraphrase of a whole chapter of Dawkins work, in my own words.
I am familiar with the Dawkins idea. It is just that in this context it becomes plain what an utter abomination it is.
3. Remember, the distastefulness of an idea does not affect its veracity. Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't make it more or less true.
I don't like the idea, because it is untrue.
BTS
doryakii:
1. I'd appreciate no personal insults on my thread please. Just a civilised debate/discussion.
That's your fault for mentioning Richard Dawkins in a thread that BurnTheShips was reading. You must have known he can't control his reaction when he hears that name. I had a dog once who used to bark and run round in circles whenever anyone said the word "cat". Burn is a bit like this but "Dawkins" is the trigger word.
Not much point continuing the discussion till he calms down....
derek
I wasn't really expecting so clear a response from any theists but both of you are to be admired for your honesty, if nothing else. Most theists ignore or struggle with this paradox but the two of you have come right out and said it. Whatever your god may do is automatically good. If he drowns children or ravages their bodies with cancer, that's every bit as good as if he made their lives happy and painless. In fact, given that your god is omnipotent, everything that happens is exactly what he wants to happen. What claim then can either of you have to morality except obedience to (your best interpretation of) the whims of a capricious megalomaniac?
First, I make no claim to being moral except that which God sees fit to bestow on me. I'm no better than anyone else. I need God's grace as much or more as anybody. In fact I see what Paul meant when he said
1Ti 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.2nd, I wouldn't judge God with a standard that is meant for mankind. So how can he be called a "capricious megalomaniac"? I believe he is doing these things for an overall greater purpose, that is not able to be seen, at least this side of glory.
Why are humans inherently good?I still don't believe we are.
Why?
Dawkins calls it a meme
behavior/ethics is based on the pain/pleasure principleAtheism is not a worldview. It doesn't carry any obligation to any kind of political or moral system. In that sense, it is amoral. Note that it is amoral, not immoral. Immorality is flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.
So nvr what morals do you abid by that work on the pain/pleasure principle?
