evolution and the meaning of ethics
democratix
moral truths that underlie our existence, and were created by an
almighty power that also created the universe, this does not mean that
without this god there can be no ethics, it just means that without
god, ethics would not be based on god.
The existence of social and personal codes of conduct that humans
encourage or enforce in others, and try, to some degree, to follow
themselves, can not be magicked away by any belief; nor is there any
belief that will keep them static through the passage of time, or
identical from one individual to the next.
The theory of evolution does not leave an ethics shaped hole, it just
leaves a gap where you may previously have fit a god-based explanation
of them. If evolution is your view of human origins, this gap is not
hard to fill. One need only believe in the long term
genetic/procreation benefits of having some kind of codified or
organised system of what is acceptable and when, and the possibility
that this tendency could have evolved in an organic brain.
To me these reproductive benefits (statistically speaking) seem
obvious. Not just for individuals, but also for families, social
groups, even the entire species, as far as it competes for resources
with other species.
You could say that without some god, or other basis for believing we
can access or know "objective truth", that these are just pragmatic
tendencies, which manifest different depending on the circumstances,
and are therefore, not proper or true systems of ethics, they are just
conceptual hammers that we bash life on the head with. But to say this
is not "proper" ethics is again to confuse a philosophical belief
about ethics, with the actual observed or desired phenomena, which is
simply a code of conduct to apply to ones life and society.
The code is *not* your explanation for it. The tendency to make these
codes, and the desire to have one which you are comfortable with,
likewise are separate from any believe *about* them. Evolution as a
theory of human origins, hints at plenty of explanations for ethics,
all of which boil down to, put simply "it worked so it stayed".
All this addresses only the descriptive part of ethics, what they are
and where they come from, but what about the prescriptive side? What
"should" I do? If we take the explanation that to create a code of
ethics is a natural tendency that has proven a selective advantage,
then there will be certain features that such a code must satisfy,
which are instinctively pleasing. So what you should do is figure out
what makes a code of ethics satisfying, and then construct one that
fits, without conflicting (and hopefully co-operating) with the other
things you instinctively desire.
For example, I think a code of ethics is more satisfying when it seems
internally consistent under scrutiny, and with some persisting
fundamentals you can easily remember and "hold on to"; but also when
it allows some degree of flexibility to adapt to new information and
circumstnaces. Balancing these two features should more than keep you
occupied.
Stranger
"democratix" <demok...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f68635bf.04090...@posting.google.com...
It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
brought about by necessity and convenience.
Llanzlan Klazmon
t...@comcast.com:
How so?
If you consider ethics to be handed down from supernatural beings then
you have to wonder why these beings never show up to provide their
authority. Instead, all we have is men claiming that their ethics have
the authority of the gods or claims that such authority was provided in
the past but not now. Either way it is people making these claims, not
gods. The other curious thing is that it appears that the ethics handed
down by the gods are often ignored by the gods themsleves according to
behaviour of these gods as claimed by the various holy texts.
LK.
>
>
>
Stranger
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <llan...@llurdiaxorb.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns955FAB50F469Ell...@203.97.37.6...
True. Since gods have to be imagined, unless they are carved
from stone and then all they can do is erode and crack.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
democratix
> It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> brought about by necessity and convenience.
Boy, does it ever.
Elroy Willis
> "Stranger" <in...@mos.uk> wrote in message
>> It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
>> brought about by necessity and convenience.
> Boy, does it ever.
Why?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
Daniel T.
> If, for example, you believe that ethics are a manifestation of the
> moral truths that underlie our existence, and were created by an
> almighty power that also created the universe, this does not mean that
> without this god there can be no ethics, it just means that without
> god, ethics would not be based on god.
If god created the moral truths, then they are arbitrary, and the only
reason to follow them is out of fear of what god will do if you don't.
If god discovered the moral truths, then they exist independantly of god
and we don't need him to discover those truths ourselves.
Christopher A. Lee
Only sometimes. The rest of the time it's the pat on the head for
doing what the Great Arklesiezure wants. Both instead of doing things
because they're the right thing to do.
Albert
<snip>
> It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> brought about by necessity and convenience.
Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
depended on cooperation. Those who failed in this basic
requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
basic types: (1) those with a natural predisposition to
cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
self-interest to pretend cooperation.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Stranger wrote:
> <snip>
> > It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> > brought about by necessity and convenience.
>
> Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
> the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
> depended on cooperation.
Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
disagreement is not cooperation.
> Those who failed in this basic
> requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
> basic types:
Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
than the minority.
> (1) those with a natural predisposition to
> cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
> predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
> self-interest to pretend cooperation.
Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
risk. Could you be more specific?
Albert
>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>>Stranger wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
>>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
>>
>>Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
>>the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
>>depended on cooperation.
>
> Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
> disagreement is not cooperation.
It's unclear here whether this is a failed attempt at
facetiousness, or simply stupid. Note the 'co-' in
'cooperation'. According to your implied definition above
cooperation in a community is impossible in the face of
disagreement. This is patently false.
>>Those who failed in this basic
>>requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
>>basic types:
>
>
> Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
> than the minority.
It is in my best long term interest to side with whichever group
values cooperation, regardless of whether or not they are a majority.
Two cooperators stand a much better chance of survival than a
hundred non-cooperators. The 'group' of non-cooperators is not a
group at all, but will, as non-cooperators, behave individually,
like a mob of keystone cops.
>>(1) those with a natural predisposition to
>>cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
>>predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
>>self-interest to pretend cooperation.
>
>
> Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
> specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
> cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
> risk.
Strawman. My comments suggest no such thing. The above
statement displays the same misuse/misunderstanding of
cooperation in a community as the statement further up.
What does the community say about the situation?
Among a tribe of hunters, one has killed a deer and refuses to
share with others in the tribe. However, this tribe has
discovered that sharing food is crucial to their survival as a
community; So they have an ethic that all food is shared
equally. How do you think that they will react when the hunter
who, in the past has been kept alive by eating from the shared
pot of food, now refuses to share?
This same tribe has discovered that monogamy cuts down on fights
and therefore has an ethic supporting monogamy. One hunter
disagrees with the community. What will happen to him if (1) he
forcibly has sex with the wives of several others; Or (2) he
continues to disagree with the community, but decides to
cooperate anyway?
Could you be more specific?
See above.
Albert
The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
It's amazing how many anti-theists know no more of what they
attack than the doctrines of ignorant fundamentalists.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:01:21 GMT, "Daniel T."
>> <postm...@eathlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>demok...@yahoo.com (democratix) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If, for example, you believe that ethics are a manifestation of the
>>>>moral truths that underlie our existence, and were created by an
>>>>almighty power that also created the universe, this does not mean that
>>>>without this god there can be no ethics, it just means that without
>>>>god, ethics would not be based on god.
>>>
>>>If god created the moral truths, then they are arbitrary, and the only
>>>reason to follow them is out of fear of what god will do if you don't.
>>>
>>>If god discovered the moral truths, then they exist independantly of god
>>>and we don't need him to discover those truths ourselves.
>>
>>
>> Only sometimes. The rest of the time it's the pat on the head for
>> doing what the Great Arklesiezure wants. Both instead of doing things
>> because they're the right thing to do.
>
>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>It's amazing how many anti-theists know no more of what they
>attack than the doctrines of ignorant fundamentalists.
There are no anti-theists outside the deranged fantasies of
religionists. And the same goes for these imagined "attacks".
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> >Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Stranger wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> >>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
> >>
> >>Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
> >>the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
> >>depended on cooperation.
> >
> > Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
> > disagreement is not cooperation.
>
> It's unclear here whether this is a failed attempt at
> facetiousness, or simply stupid. Note the 'co-' in
> 'cooperation'. According to your implied definition above
> cooperation in a community is impossible in the face of
> disagreement. This is patently false.
I was being neither facetious nor stupid. Cooperation requires
agreement. Whether that agreement is in the means or the ends, failure
to agree is a failure of cooperation. We cannot work together as a
community without agreement.
I'm open to a specific example should you have one.
> >>Those who failed in this basic
> >>requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
> >>basic types:
> >
> >
> > Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
> > than the minority.
>
> It is in my best long term interest to side with whichever group
> values cooperation, regardless of whether or not they are a majority.
This sounds rather pleasing, but I can't seem to think of a practical
situation where this is true.
> Two cooperators stand a much better chance of survival than a
> hundred non-cooperators. The 'group' of non-cooperators is not a
> group at all, but will, as non-cooperators, behave individually,
> like a mob of keystone cops.
I am not cooperating with you at the moment. I disagree quite strongly
and my survival in the immediate or long term future is not threatened
by this. Nor is your surival threatened by any means that I can assess.
> >>(1) those with a natural predisposition to
> >>cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
> >>predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
> >>self-interest to pretend cooperation.
> >
> >
> > Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
> > specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
> > cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
> > risk.
>
> Strawman. My comments suggest no such thing. The above
> statement displays the same misuse/misunderstanding of
> cooperation in a community as the statement further up.
Perhaps then, that onus is one you to define the boundaries of what you
mean by cooperation.
> What does the community say about the situation?
>
> Among a tribe of hunters, one has killed a deer and refuses to
> share with others in the tribe. However, this tribe has
> discovered that sharing food is crucial to their survival as a
> community; So they have an ethic that all food is shared
> equally. How do you think that they will react when the hunter
> who, in the past has been kept alive by eating from the shared
> pot of food, now refuses to share?
The tribe may also suffer. Such a policy or ethic also means that when
food is scarce everyone eats poorly and faces the consequences of this
sense of community, whereas those who can hunt and provide are then
depeleted to complete that task by which the community believes they
will survive.
> This same tribe has discovered that monogamy cuts down on fights
> and therefore has an ethic supporting monogamy. One hunter
> disagrees with the community. What will happen to him if (1) he
> forcibly has sex with the wives of several others; Or (2) he
> continues to disagree with the community, but decides to
> cooperate anyway?
>
> Could you be more specific?
>
> See above.
A false dilemma. I am not currently monogamous and I have not been
involved in any fights. I think it also an assumption that because I do
not practice monogamy that I engage in forced sex. I am unwilling to
cooperate and practice monogamy at the moment and I still don't see how
your survival or mine is negatively affected by that action.
democratix
> demok...@yahoo.com (democratix) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > "Stranger" <in...@mos.uk> wrote in message
>
> >> It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> >> brought about by necessity and convenience.
>
> > Boy, does it ever.
>
> Why?
Well it pretty much removes the possibility of establishing any small
set of clearly defined, fundamental laws of ethics; rather you have to
balance and interpret a whole swag of inter-relating instincts and
cognitive faculties. Kind of like if you buy the newest, most
complicated real-time strategy game for your pc but have never played
one before, never even played chess. Conceptually, I think it would
feel very "muddy", at least until you've clocked up a decent number of
hours.
Elroy Willis
> The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
> grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
What was the purpose?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> demok...@yahoo.com (democratix) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> "Stranger" <in...@mos.uk> wrote in message
>>>> It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
>>>> brought about by necessity and convenience.
>>> Boy, does it ever.
>> Why?
> Well it pretty much removes the possibility of establishing any small
> set of clearly defined, fundamental laws of ethics; rather you have to
> balance and interpret a whole swag of inter-relating instincts and
> cognitive faculties. Kind of like if you buy the newest, most
> complicated real-time strategy game for your pc but have never played
> one before, never even played chess. Conceptually, I think it would
> feel very "muddy", at least until you've clocked up a decent number of
> hours.
Start with a smaller group or tribe and you might find it easier.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> Albert wrote:
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
><snip>
>>>>Only sometimes. The rest of the time it's the pat on the head for
>>>>doing what the Great Arklesiezure wants. Both instead of doing things
>>>>because they're the right thing to do.
>>>
>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>It's amazing how many anti-theists know no more of what they
>>>attack than the doctrines of ignorant fundamentalists.
>>
>> There are no anti-theists outside the deranged fantasies of
>> religionists. And the same goes for these imagined "attacks".
>
>LOL. So, the remark above about the Great Arklesiezure is not
>mocking, but rather your own best understanding of theism. I am
>*so* sorry to have misjudged you.
And all the time I thought _you_ were talking about something you
realised was only hypothetical that only its believers took seriously.
So I substituted something else neither its believers nor anybody else
takes seriously, to illustrate just how ridiculous explanations like
that are.
If it was over your head, replace "a pat on the head from the Great
Arkleseizure" with something else and you get:
"The rest of the time it's a pat on the head they imagine the
hypothetical belief object of their religious belief gives them, for
doing what the same hypothetical object of their religious belief
wants".
But this does not demonstrate just how ridiculous your original
version talking about this hypothetical object of your/their religious
belief to people outside your religion, actually is.
What a strange, sociopathic binary-thinking existence you lead, that
makes you unable to realise that the Arkleseizure version is exactly
the same as your original God version, and is not mocking - it just
demonstrates how ridiculous the God version is to your audience.
But you can't cope with this so instead you invent falsehoods about
atheists, that fit your limited worldview and satisfy your self-image.
Pretending it is "mocking" is a copout that fools nobody except
yourself. Although I suppose in your mind it gives you an excuse to
ignore the point that believers don't just behave because of the
threat of punishment but also because of the pat on the head they
imagine their belief-object gives them.
>Let me try again:
>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
If the previous response was over your head, how about this one:
Demonstrate that it exists outside your overworked imagination in
order to create man. Until then you have nothing to say on the
subject.
To save yourself embarrassment, why don't you substitute something
_you_ don't believe in and find ridiculous for "God" and read the new
version. If it sounds ridiculous to you, how do you think your
original will sound to an audience for whom "God" is equally
ridiculous?
>It's amazing how many /well meaning atheists/ who know no more of
>what they /comment on/ than the doctrines of ignorant
>fundamentalists.
Why do you invent such falsehoods? Are you really so ignorant that you
imagine talking about your Great Arkleseizure equivalent as though it
existed, is going to be taken seriously by an audience that doesn't
believe in it?
Albert
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>
> What was the purpose?
>
highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
and love the Good for it's own sake.
Albert
<snip>
> _you_ don't believe in and find ridiculous for "God" and read the new
> version. If it sounds ridiculous to you, how do you think your
> original will sound to an audience for whom "God" is equally
> ridiculous?
I am totally unconcerned about any audience for whom God is
ridiculous. Believe what you like, and live and die with
possibly unexpected consequences.
>>It's amazing how many /well meaning atheists/ who know no more of
>>what they /comment on/ than the doctrines of ignorant
>>fundamentalists.
>
>
> Why do you invent such falsehoods? Are you really so ignorant that you
> imagine talking about your Great Arkleseizure equivalent as though it
> existed, is going to be taken seriously by an audience that doesn't
> believe in it?
Of course not. You are spiritually dead, so it would be useless.
Furthermore, I have been warned against giving what is Holy to
dogs and against throwing pearls before swine.
Christopher A. Lee
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>
>> What was the purpose?
>>
>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>and love the Good for it's own sake.
Meaningless gobbledygook.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
><snip>
>> To save yourself embarrassment, why don't you substitute something
>> _you_ don't believe in and find ridiculous for "God" and read the new
>> version. If it sounds ridiculous to you, how do you think your
>> original will sound to an audience for whom "God" is equally
>> ridiculous?
>
>I am totally unconcerned about any audience for whom God is
>ridiculous. Believe what you like, and live and die with
>possibly unexpected consequences.
Then you have nothing to say, so crawl back to the comfort of your
delusion and have the common sense not to talk about it as though it
should be as real to your audience as it is to you.
It's not rocket science, but it is both stupid and rude to talk at
them as though Santa Claus were as real for them as it is for you.
That you ignorantly imagine we're ridiculing something that exists,
shows how out of touch with reality you are. That you can't grasp the
simple concept of "what somebody else believes".
>>>It's amazing how many /well meaning atheists/ who know no more of
>>>what they /comment on/ than the doctrines of ignorant
>>>fundamentalists.
>>
>> Why do you invent such falsehoods? Are you really so ignorant that you
>> imagine talking about your Great Arkleseizure equivalent as though it
>> existed, is going to be taken seriously by an audience that doesn't
>> believe in it?
>
>Of course not. You are spiritually dead, so it would be useless.
> Furthermore, I have been warned against giving what is Holy to
>dogs and against throwing pearls before swine.
And you are a stupid, thoroughly nasty liar.
Do you imagine that piling falsehood upon falsehood, personal lie upon
personal lie, is going to convince us that you are anything else?
Elroy Willis
> I have been warned against giving what is Holy to dogs and
> against throwing pearls before swine.
Ah, but would you raise pigs for a profit?
Robibnikoff
"Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:10k3i9k...@corp.supernews.com...
snip
> Of course not. You are spiritually dead, so it would be useless.
> Furthermore, I have been warned against giving what is Holy to
> dogs and against throwing pearls before swine.
Ah, yet another fine example of that good christian love and compassion I'm
always hearing about ;p
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Albert
Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:17 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>
>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledygook.
>
>Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
Why does Christianity turn so many of you into delieberately nasty,
stupid, in-your-face personally nasty liars?
Why do you imagine your gobbledygook should have any meaning to
non-Christians, moronic Liar For God?
Albert
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>To save yourself embarrassment, why don't you substitute something
>>>_you_ don't believe in and find ridiculous for "God" and read the new
>>>version. If it sounds ridiculous to you, how do you think your
>>>original will sound to an audience for whom "God" is equally
>>>ridiculous?
>>
>>I am totally unconcerned about any audience for whom God is
>>ridiculous. Believe what you like, and live and die with
>>possibly unexpected consequences.
>
>
> Then you have nothing to say, so crawl back to the comfort of your
> delusion and have the common sense not to talk about it as though it
> should be as real to your audience as it is to you.
You are not my audience.
> It's not rocket science, but it is both stupid and rude to talk at
> them as though Santa Claus were as real for them as it is for you.
Not nearly as stupid and rude as crossposting your attacks on
theism on alt.philosophy.debate. Quit crossposting your attacks
and I will quit replying.
> That you ignorantly imagine we're ridiculing something that exists,
> shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You are ridiculing the very real believers. I assure you that we
exist.
> That you can't grasp the
> simple concept of "what somebody else believes".
This is just a sentence fragment. Care to complete it?
>>>>It's amazing how many /well meaning atheists/ who know no more of
>>>>what they /comment on/ than the doctrines of ignorant
>>>>fundamentalists.
>>>
>>>Why do you invent such falsehoods? Are you really so ignorant that you
>>>imagine talking about your Great Arkleseizure equivalent as though it
>>>existed, is going to be taken seriously by an audience that doesn't
>>>believe in it?
>>
>>Of course not. You are spiritually dead, so it would be useless.
>> Furthermore, I have been warned against giving what is Holy to
>>dogs and against throwing pearls before swine.
>
> And you are a stupid, thoroughly nasty liar.
Nope.
> Do you imagine that piling falsehood upon falsehood, personal lie upon
> personal lie, is going to convince us that you are anything else?
I told you before: you are spiritually dead. I have no
intention of trying to convince you of anything. I post replies
to your attacks for the benefit of those who doubt that you have
a monopoly on truth.
Albert
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:55:46 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:17 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>>
>>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>>
>>>
>>>Meaningless gobbledygook.
>>
>>Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
>
>
> Why does Christianity turn so many of you into delieberately nasty,
> stupid, in-your-face personally nasty liars?
I haven't lied.
> Why do you imagine your gobbledygook should have any meaning to
> non-Christians, moronic Liar For God?
<sigh> It is only meaningless to the spiritually dead.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:43:32 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>To save yourself embarrassment, why don't you substitute something
>>>>_you_ don't believe in and find ridiculous for "God" and read the new
>>>>version. If it sounds ridiculous to you, how do you think your
>>>>original will sound to an audience for whom "God" is equally
>>>>ridiculous?
>>>
>>>I am totally unconcerned about any audience for whom God is
>>>ridiculous. Believe what you like, and live and die with
>>>possibly unexpected consequences.
>>
>> Then you have nothing to say, so crawl back to the comfort of your
>> delusion and have the common sense not to talk about it as though it
>> should be as real to your audience as it is to you.
>
>You are not my audience.
Yes I am - when you post your inanity to an atheist newsgroup.
>> It's not rocket science, but it is both stupid and rude to talk at
>> them as though Santa Claus were as real for them as it is for you.
>
>Not nearly as stupid and rude as crossposting your attacks on
>theism on alt.philosophy.debate. Quit crossposting your attacks
>and I will quit replying.
If you had used any common sense at all, you would not have posted
stuff that presumes your Great Arkleseizure equivalent, to an atheist
newsgroup. And you would not have lied when the sociopathic stupidity
and disrespect of doing this, was pointed out.
>> That you ignorantly imagine we're ridiculing something that exists,
>> shows how out of touch with reality you are.
>
>You are ridiculing the very real believers. I assure you that we
>exist.
Why do you continue to lie?
block
> Of course not. You are spiritually dead, so it would be useless.
> Furthermore, I have been warned against giving what is Holy to
> dogs and against throwing pearls before swine.
>
You are missing the point big time. If what you believe is what you believe
then the whole point on meeting someone who "you" feel is spiritually dead
is to make them or at least help them become what you consider to be
spiritually alive. This can be done by example, or by intelligent
reasoning, or numerous other methods. You on the other hand chose to
portray, that whatever it is that you believe in, that there are those who
you consider are not "suitable" and therefore will not only not be included,
but God himself would spit in their faces. Their one and only chance for
Salvation (sic) - namely you (sic) has passed them by, by you considering
them beneath even consideration to receive the love of God! You can't go
around preaching this bullshit. Swine don't want pearls anyway, that is
such a stupid expression. I am sure God is as capable of being pearls in
your pure and lily white world as he is of being a jolly good hamburger in
others, and I can bet you anything you like, He prefers being a hamburger!!!
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:55:46 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:17 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>>>
>>>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>>>
>>>>Meaningless gobbledygook.
>>>
>>>Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
>>
>> Why does Christianity turn so many of you into delieberately nasty,
>> stupid, in-your-face personally nasty liars?
>
>I haven't lied.
Yes you have. You made personal, nasty lies as an excuse to ignore the
remarkably obvious fact that your audience includes prople outside
your religion, where any explanation that presumes its deity is
worthless.
If you wouldn't be satisfied by an "explanation" that presumes
Krishna, why expect people outside your religion to treat your
equivalent "explanation" any more seriously?
And instead of acknowledging this they pretended you were mocking
Krishna?
Aside from the fact that *Y*O*U* are telling us that if *Y*O*U* didn't
believe in WHAT TO US IS NO DIFFERENT THAN the Great Arkleseizure
*Y*O*U* would be an even nastier person than you already are.
>> Why do you imagine your gobbledygook should have any meaning to
>> non-Christians, moronic Liar For God?
>
><sigh> It is only meaningless to the spiritually dead.
What "spiritually dead", liar?
Christopher A. Lee
The point is that he knows his audience includes people who don't
already believe as he does. One of the newsgroups he is cross-posting
to, is specifically for atheists. Yet his "explanations" presume that
his deity is as real for us as it is for him even though we're outside
his religion. Who is he "explaining" to? Himself?
We don't treat theists per se as idiots. Plenty of them don't make
this remarkably obvious mistake, or they only do it once and make a
conscious effort not to do it again.
We shouldn't have to substitute something he doesn't believe in, to
show him how his original sounds outside his religion.
Mani Deli
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:17 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>
>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledygook.
>
>Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
You know as much about god as I do, which amounts to absolutly
nothing. That is why anything you claim to know about god amounts to
Meaningless gobbledygook.
You are spiriitually constipated.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:50:04 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:24:46 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:55:46 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:17 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless gobbledygook.
>>>
>>>Of course it seems so to you, because you are spiritually dead.
>>
>>You know as much about god as I do, which amounts to absolutly
>>nothing. That is why anything you claim to know about god amounts to
>>Meaningless gobbledygook.
>
>Why do you continue to lie?
>
>Demonstrate that there is something there for anything to be known or
>not known about.
>
>Until you do that it remains merely the object of somebody else''s
>wacky belief.
>
>>You are spiriitually constipated.
>
>And you're still a thoroughly nasty, in-your-face liar who uses
>personal nastiness instead of addressing points.
Kermit
> In article <10k0rgv...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > brought about by necessity and convenience.
> >
> > the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
> > depended on cooperation.
>
> Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
> disagreement is not cooperation.
>
> > requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
> > basic types:
>
> Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
> than the minority.
>
> > cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
> > predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
> > self-interest to pretend cooperation.
>
> Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
> specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
> cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
An off-the-cuff and tentative explanation for how morals came about
in an intelligent social animal is hardly a claim for an exhaustive,
simple minded, and rigid, moral code. Try driving on the left side of
the road in the US and you will quickly come to appreciate the
survival value of social cooperation.
Some theists say God tells them not to kill, yet they are not
pacifists. These theists would say that God expects them to
intelligently apply basic principles to complex situations.
As an atheist, I have no trouble with the concept that basic
principles sometimes conflict, or it may not be obvious how they apply
in a particular context. Most morally tricky situation are contrived,
and rarely occur in real life. Morally difficult (puts us to the test)
situations, on the other hand, are all too common.
Understanding evolution, of course, does not require anyone to give up
their religions, except for a few denominations which seem determined
to make claims about the universe which are demonstrably untrue.
Kermit
wbarwell
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:01:21 GMT, "Daniel T."
>> <postm...@eathlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>demok...@yahoo.com (democratix) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If, for example, you believe that ethics are a manifestation of the
>>>>moral truths that underlie our existence, and were created by an
>>>>almighty power that also created the universe, this does not mean that
>>>>without this god there can be no ethics, it just means that without
>>>>god, ethics would not be based on god.
>>>
>>>If god created the moral truths, then they are arbitrary, and the only
>>>reason to follow them is out of fear of what god will do if you don't.
>>>
>>>If god discovered the moral truths, then they exist independantly of god
>>>and we don't need him to discover those truths ourselves.
>>
>>
>> Only sometimes. The rest of the time it's the pat on the head for
>> doing what the Great Arklesiezure wants. Both instead of doing things
>> because they're the right thing to do.
>
> The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
> grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
> It's amazing how many anti-theists know no more of what they
> attack than the doctrines of ignorant fundamentalists.
>
>
Read Genesis. Man was created merely as stoop labor, a
gardener in the garden where the gods grew their magic
fruit trees that gave them their powers as gods.
I am continually amazed at how few xians
actually have read Genesis 1 - 3 and understood the basics
of this simple fairy tale.
Not stoop labor man was not invited to the magic fruit feast.
No knowedge of good and evil was allowed and most assured no
munching the fruit of the tree of live and becoming immortal like
the gods. Genesis 3:22.
A stupid tale.
--
Bush added $2 trillion in national debt in three years. The
biggest addition of national debt of any president. There are
280 million Americans. That is $3,333 per American, $13,332
For a family of four. Bush wants to make the tax cuts that are
generating these vast debts permanent.Vote Kerry, we cannot
afford more massive debt.
Cheerful Charlie
Milan
"Daniel T." <postm...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-6BCB7...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> demok...@yahoo.com (democratix) wrote:
>
> > If, for example, you believe that ethics are a manifestation of the
> > moral truths that underlie our existence, and were created by an
> > almighty power that also created the universe, this does not mean that
> > without this god there can be no ethics, it just means that without
> > god, ethics would not be based on god.
>
> If god created the moral truths, then they are arbitrary, and the only
> reason to follow them is out of fear of what god will do if you don't.
>
> If god discovered the moral truths, then they exist independantly of god
> and we don't need him to discover those truths ourselves.
As Plato says very nicely in Eutyphro. Very good. 10/10 in your Ethics
class.
regards
Milan
Albert
> Albert wrote:
>>Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>>>>Stranger wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
>>>>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
>>>>the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
>>>>depended on cooperation.
>>>
>>>Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
>>>disagreement is not cooperation.
>>
>>It's unclear here whether this is a failed attempt at
>>facetiousness, or simply stupid. Note the 'co-' in
>>'cooperation'. According to your implied definition above
>>cooperation in a community is impossible in the face of
>>disagreement. This is patently false.
>
> I was being neither facetious nor stupid. Cooperation requires
> agreement. Whether that agreement is in the means or the ends, failure
> to agree is a failure of cooperation. We cannot work together as a
> community without agreement.
All that is required is agreement to cooperate. We may initially
disagree on either ends or means, yet finally agree on a single
course of action. You may even continue to disagree to on ends
and/or means and yet agree to cooperate in order to receive the
benefits of community. What point are you trying to make?
> I'm open to a specific example should you have one.
>>>>Those who failed in this basic
>>>>requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
>>>>basic types:
<snipped here without notification>
>>>
>>>
>>>Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
>>>than the minority.
>>
>>It is in my best long term interest to side with whichever group
>>values cooperation, regardless of whether or not they are a majority.
>
> This sounds rather pleasing, but I can't seem to think of a practical
> situation where this is true.
Well, you inability to think is a real show stopper, isn't it?
Maybe I can help:
(1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
brought about by necessity and convenience.
(2) Because we are speaking of evolution, imagine a tribe of, say
20, hunter/gatherers.
(3) Imagine 18 of these, a majority, dislike sharing in all forms
and prefer hunting alone and each keeping and eating their own kill.
(4) Imagine 2 of the 20 prefer sharing the risk of failure and
decide to cooperate with each other on the hunt, then share and
share alike with the kill.
I would bet on the 2 surviving over any one of the other 18.
>>Two cooperators stand a much better chance of survival than a
>>hundred non-cooperators. The 'group' of non-cooperators is not a
>>group at all, but will, as non-cooperators, behave individually,
>>like a mob of keystone cops.
> I am not cooperating with you at the moment.
But, you are. We are using the same language. And responding in
a way meant to be understood. If you were not cooperating you
would not post. You *are* disagreeing which is not identical to
cooperating.
> I disagree quite strongly
<sigh> Disagreement is not identical with cooperation.
> and my survival in the immediate or long term future is not threatened
> by this. Nor is your surival threatened by any means that I can assess.
(1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
brought about by necessity and convenience.
Evolution does not concern itself with the individual but rather
with the gene pool of the species over many generations. Sure,
you could choose to not cooperate within your current community,
e.g by ignoring the agreed upon rules of the road; But then the
chances are much greater that you will be killed in an auto
accident, thereby removing yourself from the gene pool.
>>>>(1) those with a natural predisposition to
>>>>cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
>>>>predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
>>>>self-interest to pretend cooperation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
>>>specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
>>>cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
>>>risk.
>>
>>Strawman. My comments suggest no such thing. The above
>>statement displays the same misuse/misunderstanding of
>>cooperation in a community as the statement further up.
>
> Perhaps then, that onus is one you to define the boundaries of what you
> mean by cooperation.
Perhaps the onus is on you to remember the topic, to understand
the basics of evolution, and read with an open mind.
>>What does the community say about the situation?
>>
>>Among a tribe of hunters, one has killed a deer and refuses to
>>share with others in the tribe. However, this tribe has
>>discovered that sharing food is crucial to their survival as a
>>community; So they have an ethic that all food is shared
>>equally. How do you think that they will react when the hunter
>>who, in the past has been kept alive by eating from the shared
>>pot of food, now refuses to share?
>
>
> The tribe may also suffer. Such a policy or ethic also means that when
> food is scarce everyone eats poorly and faces the consequences of this
> sense of community, whereas those who can hunt and provide are then
> depeleted to complete that task by which the community believes they
> will survive.
Of course, the environment can destroy whole communities. But on
average, they stand a much greater chance of surviving than the
lone hunter during the same conditions of scarcity. Have you
read no anthropology at all?
>>This same tribe has discovered that monogamy cuts down on fights
>>and therefore has an ethic supporting monogamy. One hunter
>>disagrees with the community. What will happen to him if (1) he
>>forcibly has sex with the wives of several others; Or (2) he
>>continues to disagree with the community, but decides to
>>cooperate anyway?
>>
>>Could you be more specific?
>>
>>See above.
>
>
> A false dilemma.
What false dilemma? I didn't pose a dilemma. I asked your
opinion of how the community would deal with the non-cooperator
in a hypothetical situation. You failed to answer and instead
offer a personal anecdote:
> I am not currently monogamous and I have not been
> involved in any fights. I think it also an assumption that because I do
> not practice monogamy that I engage in forced sex. I am unwilling to
> cooperate and practice monogamy at the moment and I still don't see how
> your survival or mine is negatively affected by that action.
Who gives a shit what you personally believe about monogamy? Are
you really such a lackwit that you think your personal sexual
practices have anything whatsoever to do with a discussion of the
evolution of ethics?
If you cannot get on and stay on topic, then I have no more to
say to you.
Albert
A funny, but rather stupid, interpretation.
Albert
> Oops, my mistake - I thought I was replying to Albert.
Indeed. We see now how carefully you read what you are replying
to. LOL.
Albert
> Albert wrote:
>>You are not my audience.
>
> Yes I am - when you post your inanity to an atheist newsgroup.
I have *never* initiated a thread on alt.atheism. I *have*
replied to anti-theist rants from alt.atheism that were
crossposted to alt.philosophy.debate.
So, when *you* quit crossposting your inanities to
alt.philosophy.debate, then my replies will magically stop.
<snip>
Albert
<snip>
> already believe as he does. One of the newsgroups he is cross-posting
> to, is specifically for atheists. Yet his "explanations" presume that
> his deity is as real for us as it is for him even though we're outside
> his religion. Who is he "explaining" to? Himself?
<sigh> I told you before. I have never initiated a thread on
alt.atheism. But I do reply to attacks theism crossposted to
alt.philosophy.debate.
>
> We don't treat theists per se as idiots.
You have.
Plenty of them don't make
> this remarkably obvious mistake, or they only do it once and make a
> conscious effort not to do it again.
>
> We shouldn't have to substitute something he doesn't believe in, to
> show him how his original sounds outside his religion.
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> Albert wrote:
><snip>
>>>You are not my audience.
>>
>> Yes I am - when you post your inanity to an atheist newsgroup.
>
>I have *never* initiated a thread on alt.atheism. I *have*
>replied to anti-theist rants from alt.atheism that were
>crossposted to alt.philosophy.debate.
And I never initiated a thread on alt.philosophy.debate, moron. I am
however aware that the thread was posted to different groups. Unlike
you.
>So, when *you* quit crossposting your inanities to
>alt.philosophy.debate, then my replies will magically stop.
Whines the hypocrite who posted his stupidity to alt.atheism.
><snip>
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
><snip>
>> The point is that he knows his audience includes people who don't
>> already believe as he does. One of the newsgroups he is cross-posting
>> to, is specifically for atheists. Yet his "explanations" presume that
>> his deity is as real for us as it is for him even though we're outside
>> his religion. Who is he "explaining" to? Himself?
>
><sigh> I told you before. I have never initiated a thread on
>alt.atheism. But I do reply to attacks theism crossposted to
>alt.philosophy.debate.
And I replied to the stupidity you posted on alt.atheism.
>> We don't treat theists per se as idiots.
>
>You have.
Only one who showed himself to be one, liar.
Bob's Boyfriend
unrestra...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote:
Threatening me with a ticket or worse is not cooperation. I consider
that coercion. Based on this post, I think I need to clarify what you
mean by cooperation. The people comply, capitulate and otherwise obey is
not cooperation, it is a response to threatened outcome and usually
negative.
Albert
<snip>
> Threatening me with a ticket or worse is not cooperation. I consider
> that coercion. Based on this post, I think I need to clarify what you
> mean by cooperation. The people comply, capitulate and otherwise obey is
> not cooperation, it is a response to threatened outcome and usually
> negative.
Laws are not meant for cooperators, in that they would cooperate
even in the absence of law. The non-cooperators, however,
require the restraint of law to protect the community of
cooperators from the actions of non-cooperators.
<snip>
Milan
> >>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
> >
> >
> The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
> highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
> and love the Good for it's own sake.
>
should indeed choose a flattering one. We are a work of art, a masterpiece,
the highest creation of the Looord, we love the good for its own sake!
Repeat a hundred times a day and watch your ego grow and your mood improve.
Regards
Milan
Milan
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rqm3k0hgcchqchaos...@4ax.com...
Why do you imagine that such brain-washed creature will even understand the
question? Don't bother.
regards
Milan
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>> grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>> What was the purpose?
> The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
> highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
> and love the Good for it's own sake.
So good and god are the same thing to you? Just take out one
of the o's and presto, you've got god?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
Albert
Actually, ego is crushed by the love of the Good and our
awareness that we are genetically incapable of consistently doing
the Good. Hence, the leap into the abyss that Kierkegaard speaks
of in _Fear and Trembling_.
Albert
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>
>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>
>
>>>What was the purpose?
>
>
>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>
>
> So good and god are the same thing to you?
No. That's your misunderstanding. I never said nor implied
that. The Good is well recognized in: justice, mercy, love,
compassion, freedom from suffering and death, etc. The good is
often contrary to our evolutionary heritage and the prime
directive of our genes to survive at any cost.
It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
regeneration.
For many this tension does not exist, or is so weak and
undeveloped, that they easily construct defenses against it.
> Just take out one
> of the o's and presto, you've got god?
Cute. Is that the extent of your knowledge of theology?
Christopher A. Lee
>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>regeneration.
Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>> grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>> What was the purpose?
>>> The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>> highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>> and love the Good for it's own sake.
>> So good and god are the same thing to you?
> No. That's your misunderstanding. I never said nor implied
> that. The Good is well recognized in: justice, mercy, love,
> compassion, freedom from suffering and death, etc. The good is
> often contrary to our evolutionary heritage and the prime
> directive of our genes to survive at any cost.
Some people say that if a person wants to willingly die, of their
own will, then it should be against the law. Do you agree with
that idea? Only some make-believe god should be allowed to decide
when a person should die? Be careful how you answer...
> It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
> frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
> seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
> regeneration.
When exactly is this regeneration supposed to take place, in your
particular theology?
> For many this tension does not exist, or is so weak and
> undeveloped, that they easily construct defenses against it.
I think it has to do with how afraid you are of dying or being
dead, and having your ego disappear forever. That frightens
many people to the point where they cling to some ancient myth
about some virgin-born godman who conquered death/Satan
or Evil, since Evil is supposed to be what causes death in the
first place, according to the same line of mythology.
>> Just take out one of the o's and presto, you've got god?
> Cute. Is that the extent of your knowledge of theology?
No, I know quite a bit about theology and religious mythology, and I
recognize that if you take the D away from the front of Devil, you get
evil. T'is the age-old "good vs. bad," or "light vs. dark," or "god
vs. devil" storyline or scenarios that were and are still so popular
throughout the storytelling history of mankind.
And it's not a linguistic coincidence that Luke starts with an
L, which is the same letter that starts Light, and Luke dressed in
white, just like the Lone Ranger, who also dressed in white, and
rode a white horse. Jesus is also depicted as wearing a white
robe in many depictions of him, to signify "holy" or "light."
Elroy Willis
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>> It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>> frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>> seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>> regeneration.
> Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
> religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
He might be talking about lusting after women, or some other
supposedly "sinful" thoughts, don't you think?
He sounds like he denies being an animal with animal desires
and instincts.
Albert
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:23:07 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>regeneration.
>
>
> Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
> religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
I have no doubt that I know more about the real world than do you.
Are all of your 'arguments' against theism nothing but insults
and innuendo? Or have you something reasonable to say?
<snip>
Albert
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>regeneration.
>
>
>>Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>>religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>
>
> He might be talking about lusting after women, or some other
> supposedly "sinful" thoughts, don't you think?
>
> He sounds like he denies being an animal with animal desires
> and instincts.
On the contrary; Man is a product of evolution, just as are the
other animals. But, in man there is a profound difference: man
can imagine the future and is aware of his own ultimate death.
Man also has the unique ability to override his animal instincts.
Of course, your comment above about 'lusting after women' is a
good example illustrating how some remain incapable of being
fully human.
Albert
<snip>
I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
The winged brain cell
> It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
> frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
> seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
> regeneration.
In an ideal world/paradise, everything would be perfect, we would all be
happy, there would be no fear.
The fact that there is (possibly) a God, or that people like to believe
there is a God is proof that there is something wrong, that is all.
It is not proof that there is a God - it is proof that there is a God
BECAUSE there is something wrong.
When all is perfect, God will disappear.
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> <snip>
> > Threatening me with a ticket or worse is not cooperation. I consider
> > that coercion. Based on this post, I think I need to clarify what you
> > mean by cooperation. The people comply, capitulate and otherwise obey is
> > not cooperation, it is a response to threatened outcome and usually
> > negative.
>
> Laws are not meant for cooperators, in that they would cooperate
> even in the absence of law. The non-cooperators, however,
> require the restraint of law to protect the community of
> cooperators from the actions of non-cooperators.
Given the example, this is speculation. So long as a penalty is
attached, coercion is also present. Unless you have an example where
there isn't a law and punishment for driving on the wrong side of the
road and people willingly cooperate, this argument fails.
Robibnikoff
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:23:07 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our frequent
>>>selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to seek for an escape
>>>in a merciful God who promises the necessary regeneration.
>>
>>
>> Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>> religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>
> I have no doubt that I know more about the real world than do you.
I have no doubt that you're lying.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Albert
> In article <10k5vb7...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Threatening me with a ticket or worse is not cooperation. I consider
>>>that coercion. Based on this post, I think I need to clarify what you
>>>mean by cooperation. The people comply, capitulate and otherwise obey is
>>>not cooperation, it is a response to threatened outcome and usually
>>>negative.
>>
>>Laws are not meant for cooperators, in that they would cooperate
>>even in the absence of law. The non-cooperators, however,
>>require the restraint of law to protect the community of
>>cooperators from the actions of non-cooperators.
>
> Given the example, this is speculation. So long as a penalty is
> attached, coercion is also present.
Coercion is only required for non-cooperators.
> Unless you have an example where
> there isn't a law and punishment for driving on the wrong side of the
> road and people willingly cooperate, this argument fails.
LOL. No, it doesn't. The presence of the law indicates that the
population is polluted with presence of non-cooperators who are
too stupid to recognize the increased possibility of head-on
collision.
Albert
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:10k65fd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>regeneration.
>
>
> In an ideal world/paradise, everything would be perfect, we would all be
> happy, there would be no fear.
> The fact that there is (possibly) a God, or that people like to believe
> there is a God is proof that there is something wrong, that is all.
> It is not proof that there is a God - it is proof that there is a God
I have not attempted a 'proof' of God. I have only explained the
actions of many Christians.
> BECAUSE there is something wrong.
> When all is perfect, God will disappear.
Huh? God is already invisible.
Elroy Willis
> I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
> and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
> If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
> the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true. In those
stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>> It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>> frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>> seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>> regeneration.
>>> Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>>> religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>> He might be talking about lusting after women, or some other
>> supposedly "sinful" thoughts, don't you think?
>> He sounds like he denies being an animal with animal desires
>> and instincts.
> On the contrary; Man is a product of evolution, just as are the
> other animals. But, in man there is a profound difference: man
> can imagine the future and is aware of his own ultimate death.
Some say that ability is a curse.
> Man also has the unique ability to override his animal instincts.
Not in all cases. Instinct can take over when you least expect it,
or want it.
> Of course, your comment above about 'lusting after women' is a
> good example illustrating how some remain incapable of being
> fully human.
Being fully human means not being sexually attracted to other
members of our own species and having thoughts about them?
Albert
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>>>regeneration.
>
>
>>>>Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>>>>religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>
>>>He might be talking about lusting after women, or some other
>>>supposedly "sinful" thoughts, don't you think?
>
>>>He sounds like he denies being an animal with animal desires
>>>and instincts.
>
>>On the contrary; Man is a product of evolution, just as are the
>>other animals. But, in man there is a profound difference: man
>>can imagine the future and is aware of his own ultimate death.
>
>
> Some say that ability is a curse.
True.
>>Man also has the unique ability to override his animal instincts.
>
>
> Not in all cases. Instinct can take over when you least expect it,
> or want it.
True.
>>Of course, your comment above about 'lusting after women' is a
>>good example illustrating how some remain incapable of being
>>fully human.
>
>
> Being fully human means not being sexually attracted to other
> members of our own species and having thoughts about them?
No. It refers to your inappropriate reply to my statement quoted
above: "It is this tension between..." i.e. the desire to
magnify yourself at the expense of another.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:23:07 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>regeneration.
>>
>>
>> Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>> religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>
>I have no doubt that I know more about the real world than do you.
>
>Are all of your 'arguments' against theism nothing but insults
>and innuendo? Or have you something reasonable to say?
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending? All I have been
pointing out is the stupidity of presuming the existence of your Santa
Claus equivalent when talking to people outsiode your religion.
><snip>
Christopher A. Lee
>Elroy Willis wrote:
><snip>
>
>I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
>and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
>If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
>the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
You, Albert, are a stupid, deliberately nasty, in-your-face, personal
liar. Was that clear enough even for you?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
>> and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
>> If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
>> the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
>
>Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true. In those
>stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
>the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
It's obviously dameged Albert, too. Would he really have been such a
nasty, braindead moron?
Albert
> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
>>and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
>>If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
>>the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
>
> Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true.
No doubt.
> In those
> stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
> the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
Yes, there are many nominal Christians who are genuinely stupid,
as is so of any category of humans. Why do you specialize in
Christian stupidity?
I think you hope to make converts of the ignorant by the
implication that religion is the *cause* of that stupidity. No
one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
Albert
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:40:37 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:23:07 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>>regeneration.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>>>religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>>
>>I have no doubt that I know more about the real world than do you.
>>
>>Are all of your 'arguments' against theism nothing but insults
>>and innuendo? Or have you something reasonable to say?
>
> Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Neither. I have been pointing out that God can neither be proven
nor disproven by science; And therefore, scientifically one
belief is as valid as the other.
> All I have been
> pointing out is the stupidity of presuming the existence of your Santa
> Claus equivalent when talking to people outsiode your religion.
Of course, all you succeed in doing is revealing your own
ignorance, in that God can neither be proven nor disproven by
science. By referring to a belief that is scientifically as
valid as your own opposing view, as "deluded fantasies" you
reveal yourself to be either stupid or a bigot.
Albert
No. But it saddens me.
> Would he really have been such a
> nasty, braindead moron?
It also saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
than insults. You fail as an effective proselytizer of atheism.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:40:37 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:23:07 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is this tension between what we know to be right and our
>>>>>frequent selfish choices that drives the man of conscience to
>>>>>seek for an escape in a merciful God who promises the necessary
>>>>>regeneration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only in the deluded fantasies of those who can't tell where their
>>>>religion stops and the real world outside it atsrrts.
>>>
>>>I have no doubt that I know more about the real world than do you.
>>>
>>>Are all of your 'arguments' against theism nothing but insults
>>>and innuendo? Or have you something reasonable to say?
>>
>> Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
>
>Neither. I have been pointing out that God can neither be proven
>nor disproven by science; And therefore, scientifically one
>belief is as valid as the other.
Apparently you really are that stupid, and not just pretending.
Because you're still misrepresenting atheists: it's not "one belief
(which is your own ignorant strawman) is as valid as the other because
there is simply zero reason to believe what you do.
>> All I have been
>> pointing out is the stupidity of presuming the existence of your Santa
>> Claus equivalent when talking to people outsiode your religion.
>
>Of course, all you succeed in doing is revealing your own
>ignorance, in that God can neither be proven nor disproven by
>science. By referring to a belief that is scientifically as
>valid as your own opposing view, as "deluded fantasies" you
>reveal yourself to be either stupid or a bigot.
Like I said, you really are this stupid and not just pretending.
Because only a total moron like you would fail to realise that we are
merely showing you how your stupidity sounds to us.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:54:29 GMT, Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
>>>>and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
>>>>If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
>>>>the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
>>>
>>>Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true. In those
>>>stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
>>>the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
>>
>> It's obviously dameged Albert, too.
>
>No. But it saddens me.
It saddens you that it has made you incapable of conversation outside
the box that is your religion, without lying about why your audience
doesn't a priori grant your inside-the-religion premises? That when
they point this out, you resort to personal nastiness?
>> Would he really have been such a
>> nasty, braindead moron?
>
>It also saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
>than insults. You fail as an effective proselytizer of atheism.
Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you are a stupid,
braindead, sociopathic liar. I am neither arguing for atheism nor
prosetylising - that is a projection of the things you morons do. All
I have been doing is pointing out just how stupid and rude it is to
talk at people as though your religion's deity were as real for them
as it is for you.
Albert
than insults. Therefore you *continue* to fail as an effective
proselytizer of atheism.
--
Milan
> Milan wrote:
> > "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> > news:10k3hs0...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Elroy Willis wrote:
> >>
> >>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
> >>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
> >>>
> >>>What was the purpose?
> >>>
> >>
> >>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
> >>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
> >>and love the Good for it's own sake.
> >>
> >
> > I'd go for that one. If you are going to espouse a delusional belief you
> > should indeed choose a flattering one. We are a work of art, a
masterpiece,
> > the highest creation of the Looord, we love the good for its own sake!
> > Repeat a hundred times a day and watch your ego grow and your mood
improve.
>
> Actually, ego is crushed by the love of the Good and our
> awareness that we are genetically incapable of consistently doing
> the Good. Hence, the leap into the abyss that Kierkegaard speaks
> of in _Fear and Trembling_.
A very minor detail when we are god's major masterpiece, his highest
creation, the top of the pops!! Look at us, we are marble cathedrals, works
of art, sculptures, the product of god's love!! Hallelujah, praise the
Lord!! Prostate hypertrophy, hernias, blocked coronaries, bad backs? The
silly complaints of the unbelievers! We are god's highest creation! We are
designed by the great architect!
regards
Milan
Milan
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:t907k0580i2hn557r...@4ax.com...
That's evidence for his existence. God never brought me anything.
regards
Milan
Christopher A. Lee
>> It saddens you that it has made you incapable of conversation outside
>> the box that is your religion, without lying about why your audience
>> doesn't a priori grant your inside-the-religion premises? That when
>> they point this out, you resort to personal nastiness?
>>
>>
>>>>Would he really have been such a
>>>>nasty, braindead moron?
>>>
>>>It also saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
>>>than insults. You fail as an effective proselytizer of atheism.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you are a stupid,
>> braindead, sociopathic liar. I am neither arguing for atheism nor
>> prosetylising - that is a projection of the things you morons do. All
>> I have been doing is pointing out just how stupid and rude it is to
>> talk at people as though your religion's deity were as real for them
>> as it is for you.
>>
>It *still* saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
>than insults. Therefore you *continue* to fail as an effective
>proselytizer of atheism.
Why do you pretend I am prosetylising anything, liar? That's what you
sociopaths do. And why do you pretend I am doing anything other than
trying to get it into your thick head just how (a) stupid and (b) rude
it is to talk at people outside your religion as though your Santa
Claus equivalent were as real to them as it is to you.
As Heinlein wrote: one man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
In other words, don't tell us things you know will cause a belly
laugh, and if you do don't lie about why.
Billy Goat
> Elroy Willis wrote:
> > Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
> >
> >>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
> >>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
> >
> > What was the purpose?
> >
> The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
> highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
> and love the Good for it's own sake.
Loving the Good for its own sake?
That's atheism.
--Billy
Albert
It's not over yet.
Albert
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:42:06 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>It saddens you that it has made you incapable of conversation outside
>>>the box that is your religion, without lying about why your audience
>>>doesn't a priori grant your inside-the-religion premises? That when
>>>they point this out, you resort to personal nastiness?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Would he really have been such a
>>>>>nasty, braindead moron?
>>>>
>>>>It also saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
>>>>than insults. You fail as an effective proselytizer of atheism.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you are a stupid,
>>>braindead, sociopathic liar. I am neither arguing for atheism nor
>>>prosetylising - that is a projection of the things you morons do. All
>>>I have been doing is pointing out just how stupid and rude it is to
>>>talk at people as though your religion's deity were as real for them
>>>as it is for you.
>>>
>>
>>It *still* saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments
>>than insults. Therefore you *continue* to fail as an effective
>>proselytizer of atheism.
>
>
> Why do you pretend I am prosetylising anything, liar? That's what you
> sociopaths do. And why do you pretend I am doing anything other than
> trying to get it into your thick head just how (a) stupid and (b) rude
> it is to talk at people outside your religion as though your Santa
> Claus equivalent were as real to them as it is to you.
I am subscribed to alt.philosophy.debate, *not* alt.atheism.
Someone (you?), stupidly and rudely continues to crosspost
attacks on theists here. I will gladly stop replying if you and
your friends would stop crossposting.
>
> As Heinlein wrote: one man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
> In other words, don't tell us things you know will cause a belly
> laugh, and if you do don't lie about why.
Albert
Get a good dictionary.
Budikka
Ethics really has little to do with the Theory of Evolution. Unless,
of course, you're a creationist, pathetically short on science and
desperate to muddy the water with abysmally maladroit ad hominem
attacks. Then the two are inextricably intertwined.
But the truth is that ethics is merely a set of principles by which
societies judge internal societal behavior. Some of these principles
may have had some dim and distant roots in the behaviors of our animal
ancestors, but this has little to do with why ethical principles are
maintained or abandoned today.
The Theory of Evolution is simply scientific investigation of what has
happened over time to living organisms, observation of what is
happening now, and some speculation about what may happen in the
future. And that's all it is.
Don't let the creationists define these terms. They have no ethics
and they cannot evolve.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:42:06 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>> Why do you pretend I am prosetylising anything, liar? That's what you
>> sociopaths do. And why do you pretend I am doing anything other than
>> trying to get it into your thick head just how (a) stupid and (b) rude
>> it is to talk at people outside your religion as though your Santa
>> Claus equivalent were as real to them as it is to you.
>
>I am subscribed to alt.philosophy.debate, *not* alt.atheism.
>Someone (you?), stupidly and rudely continues to crosspost
>attacks on theists here. I will gladly stop replying if you and
>your friends would stop crossposting.
And you know you're cross-posting, liar. Why don't you stop doing
that, hypocrite, and stop whining?
Nobody is attacking theists either, liar. Just treating a lying
hypocrite who uses personal nastiness, slander and libel against
atheists instead of acknowledging just how (a) stupid and (b) rude it
is to talk at them as though his deity was as real to them as it is to
him.
But then you already know that, liar, because you have been reminded
this, every time you have done it.
And if you hadn't done it in the first place, whining Chtristian
hypocrite, it would not have needed to be pointed out.
Christopher A. Lee
>Billy Goat wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message news:<10k3hs0...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The purpose of God in creating Man was not so that He could be a
>>>>>grand trainer of animals, specializing in Pavlovian techniques.
>>>>
>>>>What was the purpose?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The same as any great Art. The sheer love of creating and of his
>>>highest creation, the man who can transcend his roots in matter
>>>and love the Good for it's own sake.
>>
>>
>> Loving the Good for its own sake?
>>
>> That's atheism.
>
>Get a good dictionary.
Get a brain and an education, moron.
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> > Albert wrote:
> >>Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> >>>Albert wrote:
> >>>>Stranger wrote:
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It becomes muddy if you believe that ethics are a product of evolution,
> >>>>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why? I am a theist and I have no problem with an ethics that is
> >>>>the product of evolution. On becoming sapient, Man's survival
> >>>>depended on cooperation.
> >>>
> >>>Then it would be in your best interest not to disagree with me as
> >>>disagreement is not cooperation.
> >>
> >>It's unclear here whether this is a failed attempt at
> >>facetiousness, or simply stupid. Note the 'co-' in
> >>'cooperation'. According to your implied definition above
> >>cooperation in a community is impossible in the face of
> >>disagreement. This is patently false.
> >
> > I was being neither facetious nor stupid. Cooperation requires
> > agreement. Whether that agreement is in the means or the ends, failure
> > to agree is a failure of cooperation. We cannot work together as a
> > community without agreement.
>
> All that is required is agreement to cooperate.
I'm confused. I stated that cooperation required agreement and you
disagree. Now you state that cooperation requires agreement.
> We may initially
> disagree on either ends or means, yet finally agree on a single
> course of action.
Agreement on a course of action, is another way of saying that we are in
agreement on a means to an end. This is what I stated originally and you
disagreed.
> You may even continue to disagree to on ends
> and/or means and yet agree to cooperate in order to receive the
> benefits of community.
This would the end result, which is what I wrote that cooperation
requires agreement in either the means or the end. You disagreed then,
but now you seem to agree.
> What point are you trying to make?
>
> > I'm open to a specific example should you have one.
>
> >>>>Those who failed in this basic
> >>>>requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
> >>>>basic types:
> <snipped here without notification>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
> >>>than the minority.
> >>
> >>It is in my best long term interest to side with whichever group
> >>values cooperation, regardless of whether or not they are a majority.
> >
> > This sounds rather pleasing, but I can't seem to think of a practical
> > situation where this is true.
>
> Well, you inability to think is a real show stopper, isn't it?
> Maybe I can help:
>
> (1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
> brought about by necessity and convenience.
That is the assertion that I am challenging.
1. Evolution implies a biological basis, as the term is often used to
imply that one trait is passed successively from one generation to the
next. I've seen no evidence that ethics are controlled by any sequence
on human DNA.
2. I haven't heard a satisfactory argument that ethics are a need or
necessity. I don't ned to be monogamous was one challenges to this
perspective that I offered in a previous post.
3. I can find ample evidence that ethics are a question of convenience.
> (2) Because we are speaking of evolution, imagine a tribe of, say
> 20, hunter/gatherers.
Evolution, as I wrote above, typically implies a biological basis.
Attributing those things to biology without evidence is, as I argued,
similar to those who attribute things to god when a body evidence is
absent. What is the genetic basis for ethics, or which genes requires us
to have ethics?
> (3) Imagine 18 of these, a majority, dislike sharing in all forms
> and prefer hunting alone and each keeping and eating their own kill.
The skilled will eat welll. The unskilled won't. The skilled will pass
their skills and knowledge to their offspring providing strong
independent hunters.
> (4) Imagine 2 of the 20 prefer sharing the risk of failure and
> decide to cooperate with each other on the hunt, then share and
> share alike with the kill.
Two unskilled hunters with little confidence in their ability are less
likely to be successful in their task.
> I would bet on the 2 surviving over any one of the other 18.
A hypothetical wtithout any detail.
> >>Two cooperators stand a much better chance of survival than a
> >>hundred non-cooperators. The 'group' of non-cooperators is not a
> >>group at all, but will, as non-cooperators, behave individually,
> >>like a mob of keystone cops.
>
> > I am not cooperating with you at the moment.
>
> But, you are. We are using the same language. And responding in
> a way meant to be understood. If you were not cooperating you
> would not post. You *are* disagreeing which is not identical to
> cooperating.
But that isn't my objective. I am not using language to cooperate with
you, but to demonstrate the difficulties in your worldview.
> > I disagree quite strongly
>
> <sigh> Disagreement is not identical with cooperation.
> > and my survival in the immediate or long term future is not threatened
> > by this. Nor is your surival threatened by any means that I can assess.
>
> (1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
> brought about by necessity and convenience.
>
> Evolution does not concern itself with the individual but rather
> with the gene pool of the species over many generations. Sure,
> you could choose to not cooperate within your current community,
> e.g by ignoring the agreed upon rules of the road; But then the
> chances are much greater that you will be killed in an auto
> accident, thereby removing yourself from the gene pool.
Which section of DNA controls this feature that you have determined is
evolutionary?
> >>>>(1) those with a natural predisposition to
> >>>>cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
> >>>>predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
> >>>>self-interest to pretend cooperation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
> >>>specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
> >>>cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
> >>>risk.
> >>
> >>Strawman. My comments suggest no such thing. The above
> >>statement displays the same misuse/misunderstanding of
> >>cooperation in a community as the statement further up.
> >
> > Perhaps then, that onus is one you to define the boundaries of what you
> > mean by cooperation.
>
> Perhaps the onus is on you to remember the topic, to understand
> the basics of evolution, and read with an open mind.
I prefer to read with a critical eye. I'll ask again, what genetic
information did my parents pass to me that would require ethics about
monogamy. And since, I have chosen not to be monogamous then, we should
find evidence within my DNA that something is amiss.
> >>What does the community say about the situation?
> >>
> >>Among a tribe of hunters, one has killed a deer and refuses to
> >>share with others in the tribe. However, this tribe has
> >>discovered that sharing food is crucial to their survival as a
> >>community; So they have an ethic that all food is shared
> >>equally. How do you think that they will react when the hunter
> >>who, in the past has been kept alive by eating from the shared
> >>pot of food, now refuses to share?
> >
> >
> > The tribe may also suffer. Such a policy or ethic also means that when
> > food is scarce everyone eats poorly and faces the consequences of this
> > sense of community, whereas those who can hunt and provide are then
> > depeleted to complete that task by which the community believes they
> > will survive.
>
> Of course, the environment can destroy whole communities. But on
> average, they stand a much greater chance of surviving than the
> lone hunter during the same conditions of scarcity. Have you
> read no anthropology at all?
I disagreed with much I encountered in University on anthropology. I
found flaws in the theories presented that went unanswered.
> >>This same tribe has discovered that monogamy cuts down on fights
> >>and therefore has an ethic supporting monogamy. One hunter
> >>disagrees with the community. What will happen to him if (1) he
> >>forcibly has sex with the wives of several others; Or (2) he
> >>continues to disagree with the community, but decides to
> >>cooperate anyway?
> >>
> >>Could you be more specific?
> >>
> >>See above.
> >
> >
> > A false dilemma.
>
> What false dilemma? I didn't pose a dilemma. I asked your
> opinion of how the community would deal with the non-cooperator
> in a hypothetical situation. You failed to answer and instead
> offer a personal anecdote:
You did. You presented monogamy as an only choice. There are many
choices. You further argued that monogamy has a biolgocal basis when you
state that these are ethics which are the result of evolution. There is
no evidence that one's monogamy is genetic. Since I have chosen, not to
be mongamous there ought to be a measurable difference in our DNA to
support this belief.
I will agree that monogamy is common, but to imply that what is common
is genetic no different that the religous attributing that which remains
to be fully explained to a god.
> > I am not currently monogamous and I have not been
> > involved in any fights. I think it also an assumption that because I do
> > not practice monogamy that I engage in forced sex. I am unwilling to
> > cooperate and practice monogamy at the moment and I still don't see how
> > your survival or mine is negatively affected by that action.
>
> Who gives a shit what you personally believe about monogamy? Are
> you really such a lackwit that you think your personal sexual
> practices have anything whatsoever to do with a discussion of the
> evolution of ethics?
It is very specific to the discussion. You have claimed this ethic as an
evolutionary trait. As an evolutionary trait, there ought to be a
biolgoical basis that is traceable within DNA. Since I can and do not
follow this evolutionary trait then, there ought to be evidence of that
within my DNA.
> If you cannot get on and stay on topic, then I have no more to
> say to you.
I gave clear examples on topic. I demonstrated that what you are
attributing to biology and evolution are choices that I make. If
monogamy and ethics are biological then, it would seem that I have the
ability to override my biology and evolution.
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
In both responses, you've failed to demonstrate your point. Drive this
way or get a ticket is a demonstration of fear based behaviour. Pay your
taxes or go to jail is a demonstration of fear based behaviour. Like
trained animals, they are conditioned responses to negative stimuli
which, btw, is a very studied arena.
Robibnikoff
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:54:29 GMT, Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks and
>>>>urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead. If in the
>>>>future you find yourself in despair and repenting of the damage you have
>>>>done, then please get back to me.
>>>
>>>Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true. In those
>>>stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
>>>the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
>>
>> It's obviously dameged Albert, too.
>
> No. But it saddens me.
>
>> Would he really have been such a
>> nasty, braindead moron?
>
> It also saddens me that you have no more efficacious arguments than
> insults. You fail as an effective proselytizer of atheism.
Maybe that's because he's NOT a proselytizer of atheism. Either am I for
that matter. Why should I give shit what someone else believes as long as
they don't try to force their beliefs on me or my child?
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Michael Gray
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
:
>Maybe that's because he's NOT a proselytizer of atheism. Either am I for
>that matter. Why should I give shit what someone else believes as long as
>they don't try to force their beliefs on me or my child?
Possibly because your taxes are stolen from you to pay for their
special buildings, their special ceremonies, their sacramental wine,
their robes and vestments etc etc.
Is that a good enough reason?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> I've been to your site and seen your bizarre collection of freaks
>>> and urban myths. You, like Christopher, are spiritually dead.
>>> If in the future you find yourself in despair and repenting of
>>> the damage you have done, then please get back to me.
>> Quite a few of the stories on my site are really true.
> No doubt.
>> In those stories, it's religion which does the damage to itself by showing
>> the stupid things that people do in the name of their religions.
> Yes, there are many nominal Christians who are genuinely stupid,
> as is so of any category of humans. Why do you specialize in
> Christian stupidity?
Because it's the most popular religious plague in the area of the
world that I live in.
> I think you hope to make converts of the ignorant by the
> implication that religion is the *cause* of that stupidity.
Gullibility and a lack of critical thinking skills is one of the main
causes, imo, and that's something that religions like Christianity
seem to thrive on. The dumber and less-questioning the better...
> No one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
> conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
> you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
> anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
Spiritually dead, eh? Oh well...
Liz
news message <oll8k0l3mps2put4f...@4ax.com> wrote:
>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
[------]
>> No one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
>> conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
>> you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
>> anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
>
>Spiritually dead, eh? Oh well...
Is that supposed to be an insult?
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
> [------]
>>> No one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
>>> conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
>>> you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
>>> anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
>> Spiritually dead, eh? Oh well...
> Is that supposed to be an insult?
I guess so. I was gonna ask Albert which of the many
definitions of "spirit" that he's implying above, but I don't know
if I'd get a straight answer...
Elroy Willis
> Robibnikoff <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> Maybe that's because he's NOT a proselytizer of atheism. Either am I for
>> that matter. Why should I give shit what someone else believes as long as
>> they don't try to force their beliefs on me or my child?
> Possibly because your taxes are stolen from you to pay for their
> special buildings, their special ceremonies, their sacramental wine,
> their robes and vestments etc etc.
Are you talking about taxes here in the USA?
> Is that a good enough reason?
I noticed that during this current presidential election campaign,
certain churches have and are threatening to not allow the candidates
to "take communion" in their particular churches. Is that not a sure
sign of how much power the churches are trying to have on our
political system?
Liz
news message <4rr8k0tv5otlv1i3o...@4ax.com> wrote:
>Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> [------]
>
>>>> No one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
>>>> conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
>>>> you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
>>>> anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
>
>>> Spiritually dead, eh? Oh well...
>
>> Is that supposed to be an insult?
>
>I guess so. I was gonna ask Albert which of the many
>definitions of "spirit" that he's implying above, but I don't know
>if I'd get a straight answer...
Obviously, it is the one you don't have . . . as if that were a bad
thing.
Liz #658 BAAWA
"Spiritually alive" apparently means that you are confusing your
internal mental constructs with actually existing things. Hans-Richard Gruemm
Albert
Cooperation implies /final/ agreement to cooperate in my mind, in
that coerced cooperation is an oxymoron. To disagree in our
deliberations is natural and normal. One may disagree with
/every/ aspect of a decision and yet choose to cooperate anyway,
in order to receive the long term benefits of community.
>> We may initially
>>disagree on either ends or means, yet finally agree on a single
>>course of action.
>
> Agreement on a course of action, is another way of saying that we are in
> agreement on a means to an end. This is what I stated originally and you
> disagreed.
That's now how I read your original statement. If I was wrong,
then I apologize.
>>You may even continue to disagree to on ends
>>and/or means and yet agree to cooperate in order to receive the
>>benefits of community.
>
> This would the end result, which is what I wrote that cooperation
> requires agreement in either the means or the end. You disagreed then,
> but now you seem to agree.
Communities, groups of cooperating individuals, often disagree on
both means and ends. But to remain a community they must finally
agree on one thing only, to cooperate on a single means and a
single end. This usually involves some members remaining in
disagreement with the majority and yet still choosing to
cooperate with the community, in return for the benefits of
community.
There is a semantic problem here due to the close relationship
between the words 'cooperate' and 'agree'.
>> What point are you trying to make?
>>
>>>I'm open to a specific example should you have one.
>>
>>>>>>Those who failed in this basic
>>>>>>requirement for community would be quickly culled, leaving two
>>>>>>basic types:
>>
>> <snipped here without notification>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then it would be in your best interest to side with the majority rather
>>>>>than the minority.
>>>>
>>>>It is in my best long term interest to side with whichever group
>>>>values cooperation, regardless of whether or not they are a majority.
>>>
>>>
>>>This sounds rather pleasing, but I can't seem to think of a practical
>>>situation where this is true.
>>
>>Well, you inability to think is a real show stopper, isn't it?
>>Maybe I can help:
>>
>>(1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
>
> That is the assertion that I am challenging.
>
> 1. Evolution implies a biological basis, as the term is often used to
> imply that one trait is passed successively from one generation to the
> next. I've seen no evidence that ethics are controlled by any sequence
> on human DNA.
I see now. You think I am attempting a proof when I am only
presenting a plausible hypothetical.
> 2. I haven't heard a satisfactory argument that ethics are a need or
> necessity.
That's because I have offered such an argument.
> I don't ned to be monogamous was one challenges to this
> perspective that I offered in a previous post.
If you lived in a community that valued and rewarded monogamy and
punished violations, then you would have to suffer punishment
from the community or leave the community.
>
> 3. I can find ample evidence that ethics are a question of convenience.
I have no idea what that statement means.
>>(2) Because we are speaking of evolution, imagine a tribe of, say
>>20, hunter/gatherers.
>
> Evolution, as I wrote above, typically implies a biological basis.
> Attributing those things to biology without evidence is, as I argued,
> similar to those who attribute things to god when a body evidence is
> absent. What is the genetic basis for ethics, or which genes requires us
> to have ethics?
Number (2) is not a question. It is part of a premise.
I am not making a proof. I am offering a plausible hypothesis.
Perhaps you should read the whole hypothesis rather than
attempting to refute a single portion of the premise.
>>(3) Imagine 18 of these, a majority, dislike sharing in all forms
>>and prefer hunting alone and each keeping and eating their own kill.
>
> The skilled will eat welll. The unskilled won't. The skilled will pass
> their skills and knowledge to their offspring providing strong
> independent hunters.
Number (3) is not a question. It is part of a premise.
>>(4) Imagine 2 of the 20 prefer sharing the risk of failure and
>>decide to cooperate with each other on the hunt, then share and
>>share alike with the kill.
>
> Two unskilled hunters with little confidence in their ability are less
> likely to be successful in their task.
Number (4) is not a question. It is part of a premise.
>>I would bet on the 2 surviving over any one of the other 18.
>
> A hypothetical wtithout any detail.
More than enough detail to evaluate the hypothesis. You very
likely will arrive at a different conclusion than I have.
>>>>Two cooperators stand a much better chance of survival than a
>>>>hundred non-cooperators. The 'group' of non-cooperators is not a
>>>>group at all, but will, as non-cooperators, behave individually,
>>>>like a mob of keystone cops.
>>
>>>I am not cooperating with you at the moment.
>>
>>But, you are. We are using the same language. And responding in
>>a way meant to be understood. If you were not cooperating you
>>would not post. You *are* disagreeing which is not identical to
>>cooperating.
>
> But that isn't my objective. I am not using language to cooperate with
> you, but to demonstrate the difficulties in your worldview.
You are cooperating in the use of language, a means to an end.
>>>I disagree quite strongly
>>
>><sigh> Disagreement is not identical with cooperation.
I think I made this typo several times. I meant:
Disagreement is not identical with non-cooperation.
>>>and my survival in the immediate or long term future is not threatened
>>>by this. Nor is your surival threatened by any means that I can assess.
>>
>>(1) Focus on the topic: ethics are a product of evolution,
>>brought about by necessity and convenience.
>>
>>Evolution does not concern itself with the individual but rather
>>with the gene pool of the species over many generations. Sure,
>>you could choose to not cooperate within your current community,
>>e.g by ignoring the agreed upon rules of the road; But then the
>>chances are much greater that you will be killed in an auto
>>accident, thereby removing yourself from the gene pool.
>
> Which section of DNA controls this feature that you have determined is
> evolutionary?
I have determined nothing. I have presented a plausible hypothesis.
>
>
>>>>>>(1) those with a natural predisposition to
>>>>>>cooperation and (2) those who, though lacking such a natural
>>>>>>predisposition, nevertheless recognized that is was in their
>>>>>>self-interest to pretend cooperation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Two people wants something from me at the moment. (I can provide
>>>>>specifics if needed.) I am not willing to give it to them. I am not
>>>>>cooperating with them. Your comments suggest that my surival is now at
>>>>>risk.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman. My comments suggest no such thing. The above
>>>>statement displays the same misuse/misunderstanding of
>>>>cooperation in a community as the statement further up.
>>>
>>>Perhaps then, that onus is one you to define the boundaries of what you
>>>mean by cooperation.
>>
>>Perhaps the onus is on you to remember the topic, to understand
>>the basics of evolution, and read with an open mind.
>
> I prefer to read with a critical eye. I'll ask again, what genetic
> information did my parents pass to me that would require ethics about
> monogamy.
Probably none.
> And since, I have chosen not to be monogamous then, we should
> find evidence within my DNA that something is amiss.
Probably not.
In a specific hypothetical situation.
> There are many choices.
Indeed, in real life. But only one in my hypothetical situation.
> You further argued that monogamy has a biolgocal basis when you
> state that these are ethics which are the result of evolution.
No, you are mistaken. I offered a plausible hypothesis wherein
monogamy, or any other trait, /might/ be genetically determined
in a specific gene pool.
> There is
> no evidence that one's monogamy is genetic.
Agreed.
> Since I have chosen, not to
> be mongamous there ought to be a measurable difference in our DNA to
> support this belief.
Not necessarily.
>
> I will agree that monogamy is common, but to imply that what is common
> is genetic no different that the religous attributing that which remains
> to be fully explained to a god.
You seem to be arguing with the wind for I have made no such
argument. Perhaps you should reread this thread, and note that I
have offered no proof of anything but only offered an hypothesis
whereby an ethic of cooperation might have become a genetic
predisposition.
Even monogamy has in fact become a genetic predisposition in many
species of animals. Why should Man be exempt from that
possibility?
>>>I am not currently monogamous and I have not been
>>>involved in any fights. I think it also an assumption that because I do
>>>not practice monogamy that I engage in forced sex. I am unwilling to
>>>cooperate and practice monogamy at the moment and I still don't see how
>>>your survival or mine is negatively affected by that action.
>>
>>Who gives a shit what you personally believe about monogamy? Are
>>you really such a lackwit that you think your personal sexual
>>practices have anything whatsoever to do with a discussion of the
>>evolution of ethics?
> It is very specific to the discussion. You have claimed this ethic as an
> evolutionary trait.
No I have not.
> As an evolutionary trait, there ought to be a
> biolgoical basis that is traceable within DNA. Since I can and do not
> follow this evolutionary trait then, there ought to be evidence of that
> within my DNA.
Perhaps a recessive gene or a mutation. Or perhaps it doesn't
exist at all.
>>If you cannot get on and stay on topic, then I have no more to
>>say to you.
> I gave clear examples on topic. I demonstrated that what you are
> attributing to biology and evolution are choices that I make.
Choices are often made contrary to a genetic predisposition.
It's the one trait of Man that gives hope.
> If
> monogamy and ethics are biological then, it would seem that I have the
> ability to override my biology and evolution.
Of course, you do. Who has argued otherwise?
Albert
>>>
>>>>Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Threatening me with a ticket or worse is not cooperation. I consider
>>>>>that coercion. Based on this post, I think I need to clarify what you
>>>>>mean by cooperation. The people comply, capitulate and otherwise obey is
>>>>>not cooperation, it is a response to threatened outcome and usually
>>>>>negative.
>>>>
>>>>Laws are not meant for cooperators, in that they would cooperate
>>>>even in the absence of law. The non-cooperators, however,
>>>>require the restraint of law to protect the community of
>>>>cooperators from the actions of non-cooperators.
>>
>>>Given the example, this is speculation. So long as a penalty is
>>>attached, coercion is also present.
>>
>>Coercion is only required for non-cooperators.
>
>>>Unless you have an example where
>>>there isn't a law and punishment for driving on the wrong side of the
>>>road and people willingly cooperate, this argument fails.
>>
>>LOL. No, it doesn't. The presence of the law indicates that the
>>population is polluted with presence of non-cooperators who are
>>too stupid to recognize the increased possibility of head-on
>>collision.
> In both responses, you've failed to demonstrate your point.
No, I have not.
> Drive this
> way or get a ticket is a demonstration of fear based behaviour. Pay your
> taxes or go to jail is a demonstration of fear based behaviour.
Indeed. As I pointed out above. Fear based behaviour is
required for non-cooperators. Cooperators need no such stimulus
to do the right thing. Cooperators see the benefits of
conventions which promote public safety.
> Like
> trained animals, they are conditioned responses to negative stimuli
> which, btw, is a very studied arena.
By 'they' I assume you mean the non-cooperators. In any event
you are wrong to apply Pavlovian ideas to their behaviour, as
evidenced by criminal recidivism rates.
Albert
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:56:49 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:42:06 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why do you pretend I am prosetylising anything, liar? That's what you
>>>sociopaths do. And why do you pretend I am doing anything other than
>>>trying to get it into your thick head just how (a) stupid and (b) rude
>>>it is to talk at people outside your religion as though your Santa
>>>Claus equivalent were as real to them as it is to you.
>>
>>I am subscribed to alt.philosophy.debate, *not* alt.atheism.
>>Someone (you?), stupidly and rudely continues to crosspost
>>attacks on theists here. I will gladly stop replying if you and
>>your friends would stop crossposting.
>
>
> And you know you're cross-posting, liar.
Yes, that is the only way you can receive my reply. By
crossposting to my group you invite a reply.
<snipped more name calling>
Albert
Forced? Who is being forced? I have /certainly/ never forced
your child. And yes, he *is* a proselytizer of atheism.
Why do atheists expect their insults to go unchallenged?
Albert
It might be if it weren't a lie.
Albert
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:09:49 GMT, Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> in
> news message <oll8k0l3mps2put4f...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>
> [------]
>
>
>>>No one aware of logic or history would make such an erroneous
>>>conclusion. Of what use to you is a stupid convert? In doing so
>>>you reveal yourself to be *not* an atheist but rather an
>>>anti-theist; And, as such, spiritually dead.
>>
>>Spiritually dead, eh? Oh well...
>
>
>
> Is that supposed to be an insult?
No.