How does an atheist reconcile rights with evolution?

antiskeptic

In the Michael Nugent and the Euthyphro Dilemma thread, robin popped off a few drive-by rounds with the following..

robindch wrote:

In your absolutist worldview, humans don't even exist at the level of animated meat. We have no rights to speak of, no responsibilities other than to do what we might happen to think we're told to, no separate existence, no ethics, no hope, no reason, no nothing. It's a sterile, nihilistic existence and almost weirdly so.

Yes, you can certainly conjure up a deity with this degree of omnipotence if you like. And as a thought-experiment, it's certainly useful, even if only to highlight where unhinged religious belief will lead.

But do you never wonder what the deity is getting out of it? We can all crush things that are smaller than us, but while thinking and knowing this does not cheer me, your deity, on the other hand seems to enjoy the threat.

In this instance, I would say that I, along with most all of humanity, is morally superior to your dark, sadistic deity.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75422159&postcount=79


A little later, I responded to CerebralCortex' picking up of robin's theme with:

antiskeptic wrote:

You don't seem to appreciate the dilemma. Since the (inalieniable) rights Robin refers to are the produce of a mindless process bent only (and mindlessly) on natural selection then they will continue to flow down the stream from whence they came - unto today rights being withdrawn (by the mindless process) tomorrow, should that prove 'necessary' for the process to continue in it's 'goal'.

Some rights these: arrived at by mindless process, developed by mindless process, dispensed with by mindless process.


One thing you have to say in God's favour. He gives all you atheists something to wave your fist at..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75434054&postcount=85

-

There is a certain amount of atheists getting their knickers in a twist about the biblical God and one of those ways is reflected here by Robin: the idea that human rights are being somehow trampled over by God - with the underlying idea being that such rights are inalienable to the point where not even God is entitled to transgress.

Leaving God aside and looking at the atheists own worldview, I'm interested in how it is the atheist reconciles the cold hard 'facts' he (if he believes in the naturalistic evolutionary account as an explanation for why he is the way he is) with the sense that there are inalienable rights. Clearly there aren't - in the global, evolutionary scheme of things.

It seems that at some point, the atheist needs to detach 'inalienable' from the sticky toffee paper of a process which says rights are a figment of that process and what's rights today might well be opposite .. after a million or two tomorrows.

Am I correct in supposing that the atheist operates within a kind of bubble - where he simply ignores the capriciousness and (in the fullest sense of that word) arbitrariness that lies outside the bubble in order to enjoy the mental comfort of a virtual inalienablility when in comes to such a thing as rights (or similarly, morality).

Isn't the fist-shaking hollow in fact?

strobe

Google tells me that inalienable means 'Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor'.

So I guess you could say something along the lines of UNDHR article 1 is inalienable by convention while that article is in effect, if you really wanted.

Other than that I think the word is meaningless when applied to rights. Is going to be a lot of cross over between this and the 'Right and Wrong has to be Absolute' thread over your side of the fence.

'As an atheist' my views are the same here as there. I view rights or morals in the same light. Human constructs or conventions with no intrinsic value per say rather than things that are woven into the fabric of space time.

I'm sure others will have a different view point.

Doesn't mean I can't think someone that stabs someone in the face for a laugh is a prick and shake my fist at him, nothing hollow about it, whether it's your god character or someone else.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

'As an atheist' my views are the same here as there. I view rights or morals in the same light. Human constructs with no intrinsic value per say rather than things that are woven into the fabric of space time.

You would agree with the statement at the end of my post then, that the fist waving (whether at God or other perceived injustice) is ultimately a hollow pursuit

I'm sure others will have a different view point.

I'm sure they will. It's not often you trip across one who follows things to their natural conclusion. Whether you actually live this actual conclusion is another thing. And so my querying whether the atheist erects a virtual bubble around himself (to stop him going mad perhaps)?

Don't see why the theory of evolution needs to be thrown into the mess as well Skep. Is it not kind of irrelevant to what you really want to discuss?

It's relevant because it renders everything mindless and goal-less. Including rights. You could be an atheist who believes we were spawned by alien life. In which case you'd not be in quite the same position as the naturalistic atheist.

How does evolution render anything mindless and goal-less?
Especially how does it do that any more than an omnipotent deity creating and taking away at a whim or on a bet?
Things arriving a certain way doesn't mean they have to stay that way, nor that they should

where are you getting inalienable rights from anyway?
We've decided we have rights as humans and according to robin we don't even have those if we are to assume we're under the rule of the biblical god

Grolschevik

[Pops head into forum he never visits]

Ethical constructivism. Can be argued to be an evolutionary necessity, or just an invention to stop most of us going all Hobbesian on each other.

Good general statement of it in JL Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.

[Pops back out]

Sarky

"We're all stuck in close proximity to each other. While there are no real absolutes beyond physics/chemistry, and nothing but the threat of revenge or your own evolved sense of empathy to prevent people being unpleasant at eachother, we might as well establish some ground rules. If we all subscribe to them, life should be fairly decent for everyone. Let's say everyone has these rights..."


How is that difficult to reconcile with anything? It's just common sense.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would agree with the statement at the end of my post then, that the fist waving (whether at God or other perceived injustice) is ultimately a hollow pursuit

Nah. (sorry I edited my OP while you were posting and pre-emptively answered that).

I'm sure they will. It's not often you trip across one who follows things to their natural conclusion. Whether you actually live this actual conclusion is another thing.

Tell me what 'living the conclusion' would mean and I'll be happy to tell you if I do or not, if I can.

It's relevant because it renders everything mindless and goal-less. Including rights. You could be an atheist who believes we were spawned by alien life. In which case you'd not be in quite the same position as the naturalistic atheist.

I think the evolution stuff isn't necessary to the discussion and will just lead it down side tracks really.

The thread's about moral absolutism etc in essence, ain't it?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a certain amount of atheists getting their knickers in a twist about the biblical God and one of those ways is reflected here by robin the idea that human rights are being somehow trampled over by God with the underlying idea being that such rights are inalienable - to the point where not even God is entitled to transgress.

The difference is that we tend to view rights as something based on the properties of the person, where as religious people tend to view rights as something to do with authority.

So I would say you shouldn't kill Bob because Bob has the property of sentience and that his life is valuable because of this and should be protected.

You would say I shouldn't kill Bob because God does not want me to and God created Bob and thus gets to decide when Bob should or shouldn't die and I should respect God's authority in the matter.

In my experience religious people continue to think like this even when trying to imagine what it is like to be an atheist. So the most common question is if we remove God who then acts as the authority to decide whether Bob can be killed. In reality though that is the wrong way to view it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Leaving God aside and looking at the atheists own worldview, I'm interested in how it is the atheist reconciles the cold hard 'facts' he (if he believes in the naturalistic evolutionary account as an explanation for why he is the way he is) with the sense that there are inalienable rights. Clearly there aren't - in the global, evolutionary scheme of things.

Inalienable simply means unchanging, unable to be given away. The atheist view, that Bob has the right to protection of life and liberty because of what he is, is actually far more inalienable than the Christian view where Bob has rights so long as God says he should be protected and once God says opposite Bob can be morally killed or suffer.

The Christian view allows for genocide, as demonstrated by the Old Testament, so long as God wants genocide because again protection is not granted based on what the person is, but on the authority of the creator. The creator decides to kill Cannanite children then he can because it is not the properties of the Cannaites that affords them value, but simply the whim of their creator/owner.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the Michael Nugent and the Euthyphro Dilemma thread, robin popped off a few drive-by rounds with the following.

Amusing to see that you have intractable trouble answering even a very short + quick post

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a certain amount of atheists getting their knickers in a twist about the biblical God and one of those ways is reflected here by Robin: the idea that human rights are being somehow trampled over by God - with the underlying idea being that such rights are inalienable to the point where not even God is entitled to transgress.

Well, yes. You believe that your alleged deity has the right to do anything at all, and you've endowed yourself not only with the concomitant right to make that kind of assessment, but also the far mode dangerous "right" to assume that it's true and use it as a basis for action.

You can certainly do that if you wish and I'm sure you find it amusing and self-aggrandizing. However, there are far too many basic dangers with it to treat it as a serious point of view -- the notion that you feel justified in executing children simply because you want to is just the tip of a vast number of insane acts that follow logically from this completely unjustified position.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm interested in how it is the atheist reconciles the cold hard 'facts' he (if he believes in the naturalistic evolutionary account as an explanation for why he is the way he is) with the sense that there are inalienable rights. Clearly there aren't - in the global, evolutionary scheme of things.

There are female atheists too, you know

What you're having trouble with here is called the Problem of Authority, the question of where authority originates within a society.

Atheists and secularists choose to confer humanity, the ultimate consumer of authority, with the authority to originate it too, by declaring a set of rules and systems that can change as society's knowledge and understanding of itself increase. There's clearly an element of bootstrapping going on here, but it's acknowledged and accepted.

The religious alternative is to declare the existence of an absolute authority figure, then -- as you've done -- endowing the figure with whatever attributes and qualities one wants to; usually to the detriment firstly of individual human beings, and secondly of society, either as a parasitic priesthood interposes itself and pretends to interpret the wishes of the deity (which are almost invariably to the benefit of the very same priesthood). Or, in the absence of, or additional to, a parasitic priesthood, a collection of religious believers such as your excellent self, each of whom believes him/herself to be incapable of committing crimes and has granted him/herself the right to do anything to anybody, up to and including murder. The religious system frequently degenerates into violent totalitarianism, in the few enough instances where it wasn't so to start with.

Secularism, on the other hand, produces the relatively stable and relatively peaceful society we now enjoy.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

How does evolution render anything mindless and goal-less?

It doesn't, although a complete misunderstanding of evolution certainly would appear to do so.

Javelin77

survival of the fittest out of context.

kylith

The issue of rights as it pertains to evolution is very interesting. While animals have no concept of rights it is interesting to note that some, at least, have a concept of fairness; in experiments that require two monkeys to co-operate to get food the one closer to the food will usually make sure that his team-mate receives his share of the food. One could look at this in two ways: 1) Monkey A believes that Monkey B has a right to be compensated for his work 2) Monkey A makes sure B gets his share of the bananas because otherwise B won't help him in future.

I believe that the concept of Rights in humans evolved for similar reasons - The right to compensation for work is linked to co-operation within a group. If a group of apes, such as humans, cannot co-operate then their group will break down which it to the detriment of all concerned.

All other rights have sprung from this as we have evolved a more complex society. Human rights are designed to keep all members of society happy so that they operate for the betterment of their society as a whole. It is in our interest as a species to extend rights to every member of our society; the withholding of such rights has led in the past to revolution and a reworking of the social structure.

Though Rights do not exist as a tangible physical adaptation they are a necessary psychological evolution to keep the wheels of society greased.

In reference to the claim that atheists say that a God tramples on peoples rights, I would have to agree. Gods demand work without tangible compensation. A warm feeling of accomplishment for building a monument does little to fill ones belly. The promise of an afterlife serves as jam tomorrow for the priestly oligarchs.

Humans evolved as complex social animals.
Morality in beneficial to such animals.
Rights extend logically from the need to have the most morality for all.
Therefore rights that as near to inalienable as we can get are beneficial.

We know God does not supply us with such rights as most of them aren't in the Bible and a lot of them are broken by God during the course of the narrative.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

While animals have no concept of rights it is interesting to note that some, at least, have a concept of fairness

You're conflating two separate ideas here -- the first is the concept of inalienable rights (the "right to life", the "right to due process", the "right to freedom of religious belief" etc), the second is the benefits to individuals and societies that flow from mutual co-operation.

Rights-based societies do tend generally to be more fair, since they define things that everybody can (usually) agree upon and phrase into an aspirational Constitution. Then use the hard-to-change Constitution to form the basis for a relatively-easy-to-change system of laws and regulations that actually do the day-to-day grunt work of saying who can do what to whom and how.

Co-operation, though, is a completely different thing. Apples and oranges really.

BTW, Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation is a fascinating read:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465021212

thanks wick and robin, i didn't think of it in terms of that whole authority problem

antiskeptic

bluewolf wrote: »

How does evolution render anything mindless and goal-less?

Because it's King of the castle. The minds which are subject to it (being a product of it) cannot transcend it or sidestep it. They will do as their King bids them

Especially how does it do that any more than an omnipotent deity creating and taking away at a whim or on a bet?

The issue is the atheist worldview, not the theist worldview.

Things arriving a certain way doesn't mean they have to stay that way, nor that they should

Which was the point. What's "right" today might not be tomorrow. What's the point of screaming about "rights" today when you have to accept that at some future evolutionary point, your counterparts will be screaming rights that involve precisely the opposite.

They might say they have the right to take life as they see fit in order to ensure survival of the fittest. And scream it with equal passion as you do the opposite today.

where are you getting inalienable rights from anyway?

Robin's strident tone. He didn't seem to be taking account of the shifting sands on which his rights are built.

We've decided we have rights as humans

And if humans decide tomorrow to decide the polar opposite? What value these rights?

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

The difference is that we tend to view rights as something based on the properties of the person, where as religious people tend to view rights as something to do with authority.

So I would say you shouldn't kill Bob because Bob has the property of sentience and that his life is valuable because of this and should be protected.

You would say I shouldn't kill Bob because God does not want me to and God created Bob and thus gets to decide when Bob should or shouldn't die and I should respect God's authority in the matter.

In my experience religious people continue to think like this even when trying to imagine what it is like to be an atheist. So the most common question is if we remove God who then acts as the authority to decide whether Bob can be killed. In reality though that is the wrong way to view it.



Inalienable simply means unchanging, unable to be given away. The atheist view, that Bob has the right to protection of life and liberty because of what he is, is actually far more inalienable than the Christian view where Bob has rights so long as God says he should be protected and once God says opposite Bob can be morally killed or suffer.

The Christian view allows for genocide, as demonstrated by the Old Testament, so long as God wants genocide because again protection is not granted based on what the person is, but on the authority of the creator. The creator decides to kill Cannanite children then he can because it is not the properties of the Cannaites that affords them value, but simply the whim of their creator/owner.

I know you'll have taken a bit of time to construct this but none of it actually addresses the OP. The OP was inquiring into this notion of inalienable (or intrinsic) rights from the perspective of someone sat under the umbrella of a mindless system. A system which can erase those rights (or the sensibilities that go into supposing those rights intrinsic) in a heartbeat. The heartbeat might take a million years to beat. But with nothing to stop it beating, the suggestion was that the atheist must construct an opaque bubble to hide away from that umbrella fact.

I just don't get the dancing up and down about something that can potentially viewed 180 degrees around by your descendents.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which was the point. What's "right" today might not be tomorrow. What's the point of screaming about "rights" today when you have to accept that at some future evolutionary point, your counterparts will be screaming rights that involve precisely the opposite.

You mean, like the right to own slaves, treat women like objects and send children down coalmines? Rights which were enthusiastically supported by the religious, and the religions?

antiskeptic wrote: »

He didn't seem to be taking account of the shifting sands on which his rights are built.

You may not have had time to read the bolded text below, copied from my post above:

robindch wrote: »

Atheists and secularists choose to confer humanity, the ultimate consumer of authority, with the authority to originate it too, by declaring a set of rules and systems that can change as society's knowledge and understanding of itself increase. There's clearly an element of bootstrapping going on here, but it's acknowledged and accepted.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just don't get the dancing up and down about something that can potentially viewed 180 degrees around by your descendents.

Without wishing to seem dismissive, I think that's the first truly honest thing you've said in this thread and it gets to the core of why you have such trouble understanding the non-religious viewpoint.

Your viewpoint requires you to think that you know and understand everything now -- as mediated by your deity, of course, but nonetheless, you believe your knowledge is complete and can never be updated.

Our viewpoint can change, as we grow and understand more about our world and about ourselves.

And in any case, so what if in 50 years time, say, the concept of human rights is extended in certain cases to other primates?

Absolutely fine with me.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Amusing to see that you have intractable trouble answering even a very short + quick post :)Well, yes. You believe that your alleged deity has the right to do anything at all, and you've endowed yourself not only with the concomitant right to make that kind of assessment, but also the far mode dangerous "right" to assume that it's true and use it as a basis for action.

I'm a bit stuck for time so I'll cut to dealing with responses based on the OP's point of inquiry.

You can certainly do that if you wish and I'm sure you find it amusing and self-aggrandizing. However, there are far too many basic dangers with it to treat it as a serious point of view -- the notion that you feel justified in executing children simply because you want to is just the tip of a vast number of insane acts that follow logically from this completely unjustified position.There are female atheists too, you know

Per above.

What you're having trouble with here is called the Problem of Authority, the question of where authority originates within a society.

Atheists and secularists choose to confer humanity, the ultimate consumer of authority, with the authority to originate it too, by declaring a set of rules and systems that can change as society's knowledge and understanding of itself increase. There's clearly an element of bootstrapping going on here, but it's acknowledged and accepted.

It's this "acknowledged and accepted" the OP was inquiring into. Since most of your post isn't actually addressed at the OP (which specifically focused on how the atheist reconciles things for themselves) perhaps you can read it again?

The religious alternative is to declare the existence of an absolute authority figure, then -- as you've done -- endowing the figure with whatever attributes and qualities one wants to; usually to the detriment firstly of individual human beings, and secondly of society, either as a parasitic priesthood interposes itself and pretends to interpret the wishes of the deity (which are almost invariably to the benefit of the very same priesthood). Or, in the absence of, or additional to, a parasitic priesthood, a collection of religious believers such as your excellent self, each of whom believes him/herself to be incapable of committing crimes and has granted him/herself the right to do anything to anybody, up to and including murder. The religious system frequently degenerates into violent totalitarianism, in the few enough instances where it wasn't so to start with.

Secularism, on the other hand, produces the relatively stable and relatively peaceful society we now enjoy.

Per above the above.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing to seem dismissive, I think that's the first truly honest thing you've said in this thread and it gets to the core of why you have such trouble understanding the non-religious viewpoint.

Your viewpoint requires you to think that you know and understand everything now -- as mediated by your deity, of course, but nonetheless, that's your belief.

Our viewpoint can change, as we grow and understand more about our world and about ourselves. And so what if in 50 years time, for example, the concept of human rights is extended in certain cases to non-humans?

Fine with me.

But you don't know where evolution will take mankind. And since you don't know that you have to include all kinds of potential directions which are a lot less palatable to you now that human rights extended to non-humans.

How do you reconcile a humanity in x number of years screaming with precisely the same sense of indignation with which you now scream - but in favour of something you now find tramples on human rights?

The suggestion is that you create a bubble around yourself to insulate yourself from the ramifications of intrinsic rights that are actually made of sand.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It doesn't, although a complete misunderstanding of evolution certainly would appear to do so.

Go on...

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because it's King of the castle. The minds which are subject to it (being a product of it) cannot transcend it or sidestep it. They will do as their King bids them.

And what exactly are the limits that are imposed on the minds that cannot be transcended or sidestepped?

strobe

antiskeptic wrote:

I'm sure they will. It's not often you trip across one who follows things to their natural conclusion. Whether you actually live this actual conclusion is another thing.

Could I just get a description of what you mean by this 'living the conclusion' thing when you get a chance? Genuinely interested in what you mean by it.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you reconcile a humanity in x number of years screaming with precisely the same sense of indignation with which you now scream - but in favour of something you now find tramples on human rights?

As above, that's fine with me.

I'm assuming that people will learn more and more about the world and our place in it, and this understanding will generate a more compassionate world. It's far more likely that rights will be extended, than curtailed, but even so, that's still an issue for the people alive then to figure out and bugger all to do with me since I'll be dead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion is that you create a bubble around yourself to insulate yourself from the ramifications of intrinsic rights that are actually made of sand.

I don't know how to say this for a third time any more simply than I already have.

We assign ourselves rights. These might change. They might not. I'll promote the rights that I feel are appropriate for a smoothly-running, compassionate society based upon my understanding. And if people understand more and choose to assign different rights, well, that's their prerogative for their time, as it is mine for me at mine.

FWIW, you're still getting caught up on this nihilistic thing that you've always been stuck on. Try not to equate discussion, co-operation etc with randomness and hostility and try to appreciate the fact of reciprocity and where it leads.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since most of your post isn't actually addressed at the OP (which specifically focused on how the atheist reconciles things for themselves) perhaps you can read it again?

I've read it again and you simply don't get non-authoritarian solutions to the Problem of Authority. That's not uncommon, since lots of religious people have problems with non-authoritarian solutions.

There is no "reconciliation" or whatever it is you think is necessary.

There's just people who sit around and decide how they want to run the society they live in.

That's all.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you don't know where evolution will take mankind. And since you don't know that you have to include all kinds of potential directions which are a lot less palatable to you now that human rights extended to non-humans.

How do you reconcile a humanity in x number of years screaming with precisely the same sense of indignation with which you now scream - but in favour of something you now find tramples on human rights?

The suggestion is that you create a bubble around yourself to insulate yourself from the ramifications of intrinsic rights that are actually made of sand.

Your argument is a massive non-sequitor. Just take computers an example. We can be pretty certain that no matter how powerful of a computer you have now, in 10 or 20 years, there will be something more efficient. But do we suggest we put our current machines in "bubbles" to protect them from change, or abandon them altogether because something else may come along? Of course not, we just do the best with we can with current technologies and remain open to having to change our machines when new tech is produced.
The same with "rights", which we create ourselves to best keep harmony and remain open to new ways of thinking which may cause us to reassess and , in theory, improve them.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because it's King of the castle. The minds which are subject to it (being a product of it) cannot transcend it or sidestep it. They will do as their King bids them


Which was the point. What's "right" today might not be tomorrow. What's the point of screaming about "rights" today when you have to accept that at some future evolutionary point, your counterparts will be screaming rights that involve precisely the opposite.

They might say they have the right to take life as they see fit in order to ensure survival of the fittest. And scream it with equal passion as you do the opposite today.


Robin's strident tone. He didn't seem to be taking account of the shifting sands on which his rights are built.


And if humans decide tomorrow to decide the polar opposite? What value these rights?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know you'll have taken a bit of time to construct this but none of it actually addresses the OP. The OP was inquiring into this notion of inalienable (or intrinsic) rights from the perspective of someone sat under the umbrella of a mindless system. A system which can erase those rights (or the sensibilities that go into supposing those rights intrinsic) in a heartbeat. The heartbeat might take a million years to beat. But with nothing to stop it beating, the suggestion was that the atheist must construct an opaque bubble to hide away from that umbrella fact.

I just don't get the dancing up and down about something that can potentially viewed 180 degrees around by your descendents.

You really are hung up on the authority thing, much as you try to deny it.
We know things change. We know rights change.


We, including myself in the atheist group for this discussion, don't have a problem with that. It's just you that seems to think everything should be unchanging forever and assume we must do something similar because you can't grasp any other way

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know you'll have taken a bit of time to construct this but none of it actually addresses the OP.

I suspect addressing the OP isn't going to be the blocker, it isn't going to be the issue you have understand atheist morality. You being unable to think in a non-religious fashion will be. In reality your question is a non-question, a category error. It is causing you difficulty not because there is a problem with atheist notions of morality but because of the way you are approaching it still in the mind set of a religious person who views rights in terms of authorizing agents in nature.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP was inquiring into this notion of inalienable (or intrinsic) rights from the perspective of someone sat under the umbrella of a mindless system. A system which can erase those rights (or the sensibilities that go into supposing those rights intrinsic) in a heartbeat.

The rights do not derive from the system, so they cannot be erased by it.

You seem to be saying that because evolution evolves it cannot be the determination of inalienable rights since evolution will change its mind, what is inalienable today won't be tomorrow after evolution has changed. The question is who ever said evolution determined inalienable rights in the first place?

You are still viewing rights in terms of authorization, you have simply replaced God with evolution and then pointed out that evolution cannot authorize rights. Correct, but that isn't an issue. Rights and value are not based on a religious concept of authorization.

It is like saying all happiness is derived from God so how can atheists think they are happy since they don't believe in God. Of course the answer to that question is that atheists don't think happiness has anything to do with God.

In 5000 years time someone having a different view to what is or isn't a persons inalienable rights is no different to someone today having a different opinion on what are someone's inalienable rights.

raah!

"We're all stuck in close proximity to each other. While there are no real absolutes beyond physics/chemistry, and nothing but the threat of revenge or your own evolved sense of empathy to prevent people being unpleasant at eachother, we might as well establish some ground rules. If we all subscribe to them, life should be fairly decent for everyone. Let's say everyone has these rights..."

Here are two things which under the "maximising niceness of life" paradigm, that individual and groups of atheists should strive for:

-Individuals in society dominating others to take their goods (unseen)
-Different groups in society treating members outside the group less well than those in it. This also applies to one country invading and taking the resources of another. They can do this unharmed.

In following these two life is more pleasant for the individuals or perpetrating groups. So the above quoted paragraph cannot be the ultimate reason any atheist acts morally.

Sarky

Well I suppose that could work, if you wanted to throw common sense out the window and use a twisted version of what I said with a specific meaning for "everyone" that allows you to be a jerk in the name of fiddling about with numbers and making a very poor point.

But that's not what I said so we don't have to go down that sorry road of endless semantics. Close call, eh?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Here are two things which under the "maximising niceness of life" paradigm, that individual and groups of atheists should strive for:

-Individuals in society dominating others to take their goods (unseen)
-Different groups in society treating members outside the group less well than those in it. This also applies to one country invading and taking the resources of another. They can do this unharmed.

In following these two life is more pleasant for the individuals or perpetrating groups. So the above quoted paragraph cannot be the ultimate reason any atheist acts morally.

Suffering of others makes life unpleasant for the general population. It is unpleasant to see things like suffering, violence or slavery, even if you are not suffering or not a slave.

Thus your logic has a fatal flaw, if atheists oppress and dominate others they will make their own lives less pleasant.

Thus it fails the maximizing enjoyment of life criteria.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Here are two things which under the "maximising niceness of life" paradigm, that individual and groups of atheists should strive for:

-Individuals in society dominating others to take their goods (unseen)
-Different groups in society treating members outside the group less well than those in it. This also applies to one country invading and taking the resources of another. They can do this unharmed.

In following these two life is more pleasant for the individuals or perpetrating groups. So the above quoted paragraph cannot be the ultimate reason any atheist acts morally.

Good to see that you have given up pretending to be atheist, raah, I don't think you were ever fooling anyone.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Suffering of others makes life unpleasant for the general population. It is unpleasant to see things like suffering, violence or slavery, even if you are not suffering or not a slave.

Thus your logic has a fatal flaw, if atheists oppress and dominate others they will make their own lives less pleasant.

Thus it fails the maximizing enjoyment of life criteria.

The suffering of slaves made life much more pleasant for the people who had slaves.

All that tasty oil makes america more prosperous and makes life more pleasant.

The suffering of people's enemies can even make them happier, the loss of an opposing football team makes the people on the team feel good.

You miss the point of my post. A persons empathy only extends so far. And it doesn't extend in the same way to people "outside the tribe" as it does for those inside.

So all of those cases of "the suffering of people outside the group" makes l ife more pleasant.

Well I suppose that could work, if you wanted to throw common sense out the window and use a twisted version of what I said with a specific meaning for "everyone" that allows you to be a jerk in the name of fiddling about with numbers and making a very poor point.

But that's not what I said so we don't have to go down that sorry road of endless semantics. Close call, eh?

Now as to life being more pleasant for "all", this is not the way anyone operates. And it's certainly not the way someone with no abstract definition of good would operate. Saying that you love everyone and "want everyone in the world to be happy", is quite an extreme position which most people probably don't hold, and it's certainly not based on any real kind of emotion towards these millions of people in the world.

And as to the road of endless semantics, nobody would ever have to go down it if they didn't try to force words to have meanings which are beneficial to them, rather than the meanings those words actually have.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Good to see that you have given up pretending to be atheist, raah, I don't think you were ever fooling anyone.

Lolz. What an entertaining angry fellow you are.

It seems that the leaving cert has greatly failed our irish citizens in the department of reading comprehension. You would do well, Mark, to learn to treat an argument from an outside point of view. To look at things logically. As is, you are so entrenched in atheist dogma and negative feeling towards your created "others" that you cannot read anything or understand the world in any way other than through the lens of this ideolgy and these emotions.

Also, do you think I am pretending to be an atheist because you started refering to me as one in that thread about agnosticism some time ago? I recall I never explicitly corrected you saying this thing, but I'd like to know where you got this impression before that point. You hardly thought it because I didn't correct you.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Lolz. What an entertaining angry fellow you are.

Angry?

raah! wrote: »

It seems that the leaving cert has greatly failed our irish citizens in the department of reading comprehension. You would do well, Mark, to learn to treat an argument from an outside point of view. To look at things logically. As is, you are so entrenched in atheist dogma and negative feeling towards your created "others" that you cannot read anything or understand the world in any way other than through the lens of this ideolgy and these emotions.

Created "others"? Created by who, raah?

raah! wrote: »

Now, for the purposes of this argument, it doesn't matter what I am, I've made the argument, if you'd like me to further specify premises in the argument, I can do that. But you should treat the argument, and not the person saying it, or the group they come from. This is quite bad practice.

Actually it does. I would have thought it could only make your argument stronger if you had of explained how you, as an apparent atheist, live your life without resorting to the type of selfishness and back stabbing that you explained in post. That you didn't let me to the logical conclusion that you couldn't, because you, like other antiskeptic and other theists, cant even put yourself in an atheists shoes in this respect.

raah! wrote: »

So for example, it is not properly addressing an argument if someone says "atheism leads to nihilism" and you respond with "raaargragargar, catholics rape children". You haven't said anything relevent, despite how successful this sort of thing may be in rousing idiots.

Ah, now I get it, you say that I'm angry and then call me an idiot in order for me to react with anger and therefore prove yourself right.

Dades

Glad to see a little self-editing happening.

Mark Hamill

Aww, you altered your post, was it because you realised calling me an idiot wasn't a very good idea .....

raah! wrote: »

Also, do you think I am pretending to be an atheist because you started refering to me as one in that thread about agnosticism some time ago? I recall I never explicitly corrected you saying this thing, but I'd like to know where you got this impression before that point. You hardly thought it because I didn't correct you.

I seem to remember you saying your were in a thread before, I cant find which one with the search function though. If you weren't an atheist in that thread, why didn't you correct me?

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Angry?


Created "others"? Created by who, raah?

Created by yourself and others whose only notion of these "immoral intellectually dishonest christians" comes from sites like "atheistszzz.com" which are dedicated to showing you how immoral and intellectually dishonest christians are, and how superior you are.

Actually it does. I would have thought it could only make your argument stronger if you had of explained how you, as an apparent atheist, live your life without resorting to the type of selfishness and back stabbing that you explained in post. That you didn't let me to the logical conclusion that you couldn't, because you, like other antiskeptic and other theists, cant even put yourself in an atheists shoes in this respect.

It wouldn't matter if it was "me" I was explaing how could live that life. As long as I explained how atheists could live without following the outcomes of conclusions of their stated premises. I have done this in several threads already.

You don't have to be anyone special to use logic. If you weren't such an angry fellow perhaps you could spend some time to try and understand that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Aww, you altered your post, was it because you realised calling me an idiot wasn't a very good idea .....

I seem to remember you saying your were in a thread before, I cant find which one with the search function though. If you weren't an atheist in that thread, why didn't you correct me?

You remember wrong I'm afraid.I didn't correct you because you are an angry fellow and I thought that perhaps you would be more perceptive to reason if it was coming from within your own limitted little group of people you can interact with.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

The suffering of slaves made life much more pleasant for the people who had slaves.

No actually it didn't, which is why slave owners made a great deal of fuss trying to justify that the slaves were not actually suffering and were in fact quite happy.

Observing suffering makes life unpleasant. Throughout the history of humanity those who cause suffering have attempted to shield themselves and those who benefited from the suffering from witnessing the suffering itself.

raah! wrote: »

You miss the point of my post. A persons empathy only extends so far. And it doesn't extend in the same way to people "outside the tribe" as it does for those inside.

So all of those cases of "the suffering of people outside the group" makes l ife more pleasant.

Everyone is in the tribe now, we live in a global world.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

No actually it didn't, which is why slave owners made a great deal of fuss trying to justify that the slaves were not actually suffering and were in fact quite happy.

Observing suffering makes life unpleasant. Throughout the history of humanity those who cause suffering have attempted to shield themselves and those who benefited from the suffering from witnessing the suffering itself.

Well this is going to end up getting back to that time when you said that "the slaves were freed in russia because the owners suddenly saw them". This is completely wrong, historically.

Now, the man holding the whip driving on the slaves, he witnesses it. And the suffering is just working, it doesn't cause loadsa fancy people any hassle to see a black person carrying around trays at a dinner party.

They may have been shielded from the whippings and beatings, but the whippings and beatings didn't always go on, and the people administering them were still a part of the class benefitting. So, while not being able to see the suffering was an important part, and this will work into my next point, anohter important part is seeing those suffering as being outside your "tribe". That's why it's so easy for all these terrible things to happen in wars. Because there are two sides.

So if you want examples of this, pick any of those genocides in africa, pick Ireland, where you'd have the Irish peasants impaling protestant babies on bayonettes. There were also babies impaled on bayonettes in the turks vs russia thing. In whatever times those were... musket times. 17-19 centuary?

And also, even if it is the case (it's not) that every person everywhere could not benefit from others suffering but by shielding themselves from it (I now realise what an absurd fantasy this is, it's not possible for at least some of the people benefiting to not witness this), then this would still be a legitimate case of benefitting from others suffering. And one of the main reasons why if you say "I wanna feel happy", you can have a slave (mind you don't see him suffering too much. Or if you do say "that's his place in the world), eat tortured cows etc.

Everyone is in the tribe now, we live in a global world.

You can't just say that everyone will feel these biological feelings of empathy towards each other and view each other as the same. We are not in the same tribe, countries are separated from each other and wars go on.

Now, distances between people, and people not seeing things. In our big society, we are very much isolated from those people who would suffer from our wrong doing. So you can go in and pillage a supermarket, you won't see the harm this causes, and any harm it does cause, it would couse the fat cat supermarket owner, who is sufficently outside of your group for you to not care, or even be happy at the suffering you have caused him.

So in summary those points are completely invalid for the reasons
-Historically Nonsense
-Logically absurd for one class to never see the suffering of the other
-Even if they didn't see the suffering of the other the arguments would all still hold
-Global tribe is nonsense. We do not even have a national tribe, save when a country is united together against another. And even then, they are "together against these others" but inside this group all the same arguments apply.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well this is going to end up getting back to that time when you said that "the slaves were freed in russia because the owners suddenly saw them". This is completely wrong, historically.

Now, the man holding the whip driving on the slaves, he witnesses it. And the suffering is just working, it doesn't cause loadsa fancy people any hassle to see a black person carrying around trays at a dinner party.

They may have been shielded from the whippings and beatings, but the whippings and beatings didn't always go on, and the people administering them were still a part of the class benefitting. So, while not being able to see the suffering was an important part, and this will work into my next point, anohter important part is seeing those suffering as being outside your "tribe". That's why it's so easy for all these terrible things to happen in wars. Because there are two sides.

So we agree. Moving on.

raah! wrote: »

So if you want examples of this, pick any of those genocides in africa, pick Ireland, where you'd have the Irish peasants impaling protestant babies on bayonettes. There were also babies impaled on bayonettes in the turks vs russia thing. In whatever times those were... musket times. 17-19 centuary?

And you think impaling children with bayonets increased the pleasantness of life for those who did it? You think they were happier afterwards?

Studies in World War 2 on the psychological effect of warfare concluded that the only people who were not suffering from traumatic stress disorders after prolonged exposure to the fighting were psychopaths.

What possible reason would there to suppose this as a goal to achieve when constructing a moral frame work?

raah! wrote: »

And also, even if it is the case (it's not) that every person everywhere could not benefit from others suffering

Ah sneaky sneaky. I'm not disputing that people can benefit from the suffering of others. That isn't the issue. The issue is does the suffering of others increase how pleasant their life is.

Bank robbers and other violent criminals benefit from the suffering of others. They also lead horrible violent lives. The ones that don't end up in prision or murdered by their own gang suffer from various stress inducing mental conditions similar to post traumatic stress disorder.

raah! wrote: »

You can't just say that everyone will feel these biological feelings of empathy towards each other and view each other as the same. We are not in the same tribe, countries are separated from each other and wars go on.

They do, in countries that have little to no communication systems between them. This is shouldn't atheists should strive for why exactly?

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

And you think impaling children with bayonets increased the pleasantness of life for those who did it? You think they were happier afterwards?

Studies in World War 2 on the psychological effect of warfare concluded that the only people who were not suffering from traumatic stress disorders after prolonged exposure to the fighting were psychopaths.

What possible reason would there to suppose this as a goal to achieve when constructing a moral frame work?

Yes, they probably didn't enjoy bayonetting the babies, but perhaps they did, who knows. The examples were a bit weighted towards a certain side, they show more peoples willingness to do things to people in outgroups.

They are related to the general points about circles of morality. Individual - societies - counties- countries etc. You can say that this is a fractal moral structure, each has the same relationship to memebers in the group.

I would put forward, however, that they would suffer less from bayonetting protestant babies than they would from bayonetting catholic babies. Or that soldiers in WWI would suffer more from killing their own side than from the other side. This was the point.

As to going to the extremes, and people even enjoying the suffering of their enemies, well this is a well documentated phenomenon, for which the german word shadedfreud can be used. People often enjoy to see others suffer, this is just a fact of life, and one you seem to have neglected.

While slavers might not "enjoy" seeing slaves suffering, it causes them no great deal of suffering. No more than seeing cows suffering causes farmers to suffer, or people who eat meat and don't mind seeing cows suffer.

Ah sneaky sneaky. I'm not disputing that people can benefit from the suffering of others. That isn't the issue. The issue is does the suffering of others increase how pleasant their life is.

Well, I did make a point about this. It's not the suffering of others in itself that makes their life more pleasant, but the advantages they can get from the source of these peoples suffering.

An instant counter-example, is that you have slaves, you can't see them, they are suffering greatly, causes you no bother, and you have a much more pleasant life as a result. But perhaps this is irrelevent.

I'll be clear, I don't think people are going out to just make people suffer and then get nothing in return, but that people's suffering is a neccessary pre-requisite for the aquisition of these material gains. And in this sense they are having their lives made pleasant by peoples suffering. Just as our lives are made easier by cheap shoes, that we get from the suffering of children in sweatshops. (but we aren't enjoying their suffering, but the fruits of the toil causing them to suffer). Except I don't actually wear such shoes

Bank robbers and other violent criminals benefit from the suffering of others. They also lead horrible violent lives. The ones that don't end up in prision or murdered by their own gang suffer from various stress inducing mental conditions similar to post traumatic stress disorder.

Bank robbers are an extreme example. An easier example is capitalist fat cats holding back the cure for aids or something. Or like a gang of knackers who attack a person on the street because he has long hair or is dresssed up as something different from them. They enjoy doing that, that's not saying that their lives aren't bad, but I'm sure that momentary release makes them all feel good.

Oh yeah, but the best example here is just that everyone who buys those shoes benefits, and americans benefit from the oil etc.

I must stress that it's not the direct enjoyment of suffering that I am angling at, but the aquisition of the material gains, that can be got from peoples suffering. And you can make yourself feel fine about this, or simply not make yourself feel bad, in many many ways. You can view the people in a certain way (you could be like, yeaaah, they deserve that those ****s) or you could not view them at all (like us with the shoes)

They do, in countries that have little to no communication systems between them. This is shouldn't atheists should strive for why exactly?

And they also go on inside of cities, and in little towns, and between cliques in schools. It's not a matter of communication technologies, but a way of viewing different groups. In prison those opposite gangs are sitting across from each other, so are the goths/emos/knackers/other fellows in school. Back before there was a telephone states were able to communicate, some states were at war and others formed alliances. It's not to do with technology.

I don't understand the last question. But I'm not really saying atheists should strive for anything. Everyone should strive towards a world of peace and love for everyone, this cannot be done on principles of self interest.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I don't understand the last question. But I'm not really saying atheists should strive for anything. Everyone should strive towards a world of peace and love for everyone, this cannot be done on principles of self interest.

raah! wrote: »

Here are two things which under the "maximising niceness of life" paradigm, that individual and groups of atheists should strive for:

-Individuals in society dominating others to take their goods (unseen)
-Different groups in society treating members outside the group less well than those in it. This also applies to one country invading and taking the resources of another. They can do this unharmed.

In following these two life is more pleasant for the individuals or perpetrating groups. So the above quoted paragraph cannot be the ultimate reason any atheist acts morally.

Lets stop for a second because your posts are getting increasingly muddled.

Your argument seems to be that if we have increasing the quality of life for everyone as a moral goal then that is bad because you can increase your own quality of life at the expense of others.

Is that your point?

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Lets stop for a second because your posts are getting increasingly muddled.

Your argument seems to be that if we have increasing the quality of life for everyone as a moral goal then that is bad because you can increase your own quality of life at the expense of others.

Is that your point?

Notice that the second part was "should under the maximising of the pleasantness of life paradigm". This is different from "atheists should". The former is me stating the logical implications of something someone else said, the latter would be me giving my opinion as to what atheists should do. I am not doing that.

My argument is that exactly. That you can say "Increase the quality of life for everyone ", but you can't pretend that this is derived from any previous atheistic theoretical concerns, you can't pretend it's based on any real emtion towards everyone (I don't believe that atheists love everyone, or that you love everyone, or that sark loves everyone), all you can do is baselessly assert this.

Now, perhaps I am a bit muddled, but I was responding to your defence of this principle by mentioning self interest. Self interest and this "lets love everyone" are massively different. Not only different but at odds. That's my point. Self interest is not at one with the interests of everyone.

So my point is that self interest, and the interets of "everyone" and not just "people I like" or "people who will benefit me" , are contradictory. So any parts of my post which were muddled or misdirected should become more clear when interpretted in light of this final conclusion, as it was what I had in mind all along.

Ellis Dee

What a lot of nonsense is being put forward here! :rolleyes:

There seems to be a perception on the part of some that "rights" are in some way incompatible with "evolution", or at least with whatever those who believe in the existence of some kind of sky fairy think evolution is.

That is, of course, utter bunk.

Evolution, as I understand it, is the process of living organisms gradually changing over time in response to changes in their environment. It is a natural process, which results from inter alia the fact that the number of offspring/progeny is invariably greater than would be required to replace the individuals dying off. There is no planning, no sense of purpose involved.:cool:

Similarly, what we deem "rights", "inaliable rights", "fundamental rights", "civil rights", "human rights" and what are you having yourself are likewise the result of a kind of evolution, a process of development of our collective consensus view of what is right, proper, appropriate for our society. Both atheists and those who misguidedly believe in the existence of a supernatural being contribute to that particular process of evolution.

If the sky fairy existed and wanted there to be rights of a particular kind, it would have created some code like the so-called ten commandments. However, the ten commandments that some believe were given to Moses seem more concerned with the sky fairy's rights than with the rights of people who are supposed to obey them - or else.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

My argument is that exactly. That you can say "Increase the quality of life for everyone ", but you can't pretend that this is derived from any previous atheistic theoretical concerns, you can't pretend it's based on any real emtion towards everyone (I don't believe that atheists love everyone, or that you love everyone, or that sark loves everyone), all you can do is baselessly assert this.

That isn't what it is based on. I don't love everyone, nor is that required for me to not wish for a system of suffering.

There is both an intellectual argument and an emotional argument for systems that do not benefit on the suffering of others.

raah! wrote: »

Now, perhaps I am a bit muddled, though I suspect not, but I was responding to your defence of this principle by mentioning self interest. Self interest and this "lets love everyone" are massively different. Not only different but at odds. That's my point. Self interest is not at one with the interests of everyone.

Self interest is already taken care of by evolution. We are not a species dedicated to self interest because evolution has already worked out that self interest in the sense you are using it (screwing over everyone to get momentary increase in wealth or pleasure) is not in our self interest.

Or to put it another way, pure self interest decreases the chances that we will live long enough to reproduce, thus evolution has resulted in a series of emotional systems to limit and regulate how selfish we are.

This ends up being the basis for most moral outlooks, be it Christian or atheist.

There is no reason therefore that atheists would peruse a moral or legal system which goal is an increase of suffering.

Nature has already told us that is bad for our own self interests. We should listen to it, it is a lot more experienced at this than we are.

raah!

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Similarly, what we deem "rights", "inaliable rights", "fundamental rights", "civil rights", "human rights" and what are you having yourself are likewise the result of a kind of evolution, a process of development of our collective consensus view of what is right, proper, appropriate for our society. Both atheists and those who misguidedly believe in the existence of a supernatural being contribute to that particular process of evolution.

Yes... you can use the word 'evolution' to describe any gradually changing thing or process, you should not fool yourself into thinking that this means it's identical to biological evolution.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't what it is based on. I don't love everyone, nor is that required for me to not wish for a system of suffering.

There is both an intellectual argument and an emotional argument for systems that do not benefit on the suffering of others.



Self interest is already taken care of by evolution. We are not a species dedicated to self interest because evolution has already worked out that self interest in the sense you are using it (screwing over everyone to get momentary increase in wealth or pleasure) is not in our self interest.

Or to put it another way, pure self interest decreases the chances that we will live long enough to reproduce, thus evolution has resulted in a series of emotional systems to limit and regulate how selfish we are.

This ends up being the basis for most moral outlooks, be it Christian or atheist.

Unfortunately, evolution has only gone so far. Early humans operated in tribes. It did also make allowances for one tribe of pre-humanoids going over to take things from the weaker ones. And also for individuals within this society to take things from the weaker ones. As I have been saying.

This is not in any sense the basis of the Christian moral outlook, which is "sacrafice yourself and take on some suffering just because that is a good thing to do, and love everyone... etc."

So as you know I've said many times, I don't dispute that evolution has led to behaviours conducive to nice communal living in animals, but this is not what you are using when you say "let's love everyone". Edit: sorry when you say 'let's make everyone have a nice life so that we can have a nice life too' [not a quote!!!]

There is no reason therefore that atheists would peruse a moral or legal system which goal is an increase of suffering.

Nature has already told us that is bad for our own self interests. We should listen to it, it is a lot more experienced at this than we are.

I was already very clear that I was not talking about people wanting ot increase suffering. You don't seem to have understood me at all.

Nature tells us to eat sleep **** and have sex. Sometimes it's easier to do these things if we work in groups, so nature has worked that in too. There is nothing 'moral' about that. And indeed, if we look at people who operate on nothing other than "instinct" we'll find that they aren't very well describable by the word "moral" at all.

Furthermore, there is no reasons for atheists to pursue any moral or legal system, other than those suggested to them by their animal instinct. And while, as we all agree, animal instinct does not consist in living as a hermit away from society, it does consist in a great deal of nasty business toward you fellows, and certainly does not consist in "justice for all". It consists in "justice for me and those in my tribe". And that's exactly how most people in the world operate.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Unfortunately, evolution has only gone so far. Early humans operated in tribes. It did also make allowances for one tribe of pre-humanoids going over to take things from the weaker ones. And also for individuals within this society to take things from the weaker ones. As I have been saying.

Evolution doesn't have to go far. It has already demonstrated the folly of promoting self interest above co-operation. So again why would any atheist who accepts natural history promote self interest over co-operation?

Such a system has already been field tested so to speak and found to be flawed.

raah! wrote: »

This is not in any sense the basis of the Christian moral outlook, which is "sacrafice yourself and take on some suffering just because that is a good thing to do, and love everyone... etc."

Christianity is a human construct, it is as much a product of human evolution as anything else humans have ever come up with.

It is precisely because of human evolution that you think Christianity is great. But the "teachings" of Christianity (I use that term loosely since most of the moral principles are actually external, layered on top by others in a later periods) are found throughout human cultures.

For example, the golden rule existed in Greek philosophy hundreds of years before Jesus came along, and was expressed far more eloquently than the early Christians managed to do it.

This is precisely because evolution has evolved humans into co-operative species, it has established systems of empathy and altruism in use that lead to things like the golden rule and make people like you think Jesus was a great teacher.

The mere existence of these traits in humans, that exist across cultures and religions, demonstrates that evolution has field tested various behaviors and discovered, through natural selection, that co-operation and organisation for mutual benefit works better than selfishness, even if you simply define works better as keeps more of us alive longer including myself.

So again, knowing this why would an atheist promote a moral philosophy that isn't based on these principles, knowing that the outcome of other systems based on selfishness are worse, both for him and for others.

raah! wrote: »

So as you know I've said many times, I don't dispute that evolution has led to behaviours conducive to nice communal living in animals, but this is not what you are using when you say "let's love everyone". Edit: sorry when you say 'let's make everyone have a nice life so that we can have a nice life too' [not a quote!!!]

I'm not following. What am I "using"

raah! wrote: »

I was already very clear that I was not talking about people wanting ot increase suffering. You don't seem to have understood me at all.

Nature tells us to eat sleep **** and have sex. Sometimes it's easier to do these things if we work in groups, so nature has worked that in too. There is nothing 'moral' about that. And indeed, if we look at people who operate on nothing other than "instinct" we'll find that they aren't very well describable by the word "moral" at all.

Morality is simply a form of instinct. What you think is good or bad (including Christianity) is based on the instincts developed in humans by evolution.

This is why we think killing babies is wrong but knocking down a tree isn't.

Thus you cannot talk about morality, right or wrong, without talking about the instincts we have evolved.

I have an instinct to live, continue to live, to seek happiness for myself and my family and friends etc.

Even if we accept your view that my tribe is smaller than I think it is, that is actually irrelevant. I know from evolution and human psychology that if I make other tribes suffer I increase the risk that I will face retribution and suffering in return.

So even being entirely selfish, why would I choose that system over a system of co-operation.

raah! wrote: »

Furthermore, there is no reasons for atheists to pursue any moral or legal system, other than those suggested to them by their animal instinct.

Once again, to repeat the point, evolution has already demonstrated the benefit of co-operation. Why then would an atheist aware of this fact choose any other system, given that we already know they won't work as well?

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Evolution doesn't have to go far. It has already demonstrated the folly of promoting self interest above co-operation. So again why would any atheist who accepts natural history promote self interest over co-operation?

Such a system has already been field tested so to speak and found to be flawed.

Evolution has demonstrated that one tribe attacks another, and that people feel less empathy for people outside of their tribes. 'Evolution has demonstrated' that strong individuals take things from weak individuals, and strong societies take things from weak societies.

What do you mean it's found to be flawed? That is what we have right now. The facts are that people don't feel the same for people outside of their groups, and as I've pointed out a million times, when I say "self interest" I'm not ruling out things like "working with fellows in society for mutual gain. This is still self interest.

...
So even being entirely selfish, why would I choose that system over a system of co-operation.

For the reasons you claim to choose this one. The benefits, evolutionarily and otherwise. You'll have more food sex etc. As will the other members of the tribe you are in.

Within the tribe you are in then you can do small things that will go unnoticed and unpunished. Thereby gaining all advantage from being in the group, as well as the advantage gained from what you are doing.

...
Once again, to repeat the point, evolution has already demonstrated the benefit of co-operation. Why then would an atheist aware of this fact choose any other system, given that we already know they won't work as well?

You are not choosing anyhting if you simply act on instinct. As you have gone into above. But I feel it's necessary to address these points first before we go down your instinct-morality path.

You are saying evolution "demonstrates the benefit of co-operation" as I've said about a million times, it demonstrates that groups can work together, yes. It does not demonstrate that you should co-operate with everyone, it does not demonstrate that you should help people where no advantage will accrue to you.

It does demonstrate that individuals who co-operate with groups to attack other groups prosper, these groups prosper too. It demonstrates that individuals who are aggressive and assertive within a group will be more successful in that group.

Now that's a fact, aggressive apes will be successful, aggressive societies (these are groups of people working together out of mutual self interest) are successful.

So before you go talking about your instincts or any of that, you must address this. This is what evolution demonstrates, that working together to get things is good, that aggression is good. That working together aggressively is good. These things are not completely mutually exclusive. A certain amount of aggression is fine within members of society, and within members of different groups, there is little or no bad reprecusions. History has demonstrated the truth of this, as would a tiny knowledge of zoology. You are acting as though in packs of animals nothing goes on other than "universal cooperation" and this is completely incorrect.