Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 77 posts ] 
Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?
Author Message
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

tuxbox wrote:We have not evolved (genetically) much since the 18th and 19th century when slavery was not considered immoral. So how do you account for that? Also, like I mentioned before, Western morals differ from Middle Eastern morals today. So how do you account for that as well?

That was not the point, as morality has many dimensions. However, the fact that slavery has a long human history does not mean that that greater society still exhibited moral behaviours. Some non-moral conduct has more to do with power than anything else.
Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:43 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

red wrote:
tuxbox wrote:We have not evolved (genetically) much since the 18th and 19th century when slavery was not considered immoral. So how do you account for that? Also, like I mentioned before, Western morals differ from Middle Eastern morals today. So how do you account for that as well?

That was not the point, as morality has many dimensions. However, the fact that slavery has a long human history does not mean that that greater society still exhibited moral behaviours. Some non-moral conduct has more to do with power than anything else.


Society helps shape morality and it evolves over time. To say that our morals comes mostly through genic evolution would not be logical. I do believe that morals started with genetic evolution, but they were still shaped by the societies humans were connected to. It would have been beneficial for our ancestors to create these morals to help the survival rate of the groups in which they lived. Would it not?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:24 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

I thought it was clear that I was referring to evolution in the purely biological sense as the backbone of morality, since human nature is very much defined by it - cultures (societies) are less important.

There are behaviours which are hard-wired into us - smiling, for example, is universal, regardless of culture. Our hormones are the same across the world - and since these govern how we react to emotional stimuli, our reactions to such also tend to be universal.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:33 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Then what exactly are biologically hardwired morals? Also, how do you explain how morals from society to society differ and have changed over time, when we as humans have changed very little in the past couple of centuries?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:43 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:Then what exactly are biologically hardwired morals? Also, how do you explain how morals from society to society differ and have changed over time, when we as humans have changed very little in the past couple of centuries?

Look at biologically-based morality in its simplest form by comparing carnivores and herbivores.

For carnivores, killing and eating other animals is moral; in contrast, for herbivores, killing and eating animals is not.

This is biologically-based morality at its simplest.

Like many other creatures, we're omnivores - we eat both flora and fauna to survive.

Vegans, and other dietary extremists, insist that eating animals and/or animal products is morally wrong. Yet, as omnivores, we need to eat animals and/or animal products in order to live - we've evolved to get certain nutrients from both flora and fauna: if we leave out either one, we'll develop various health problems, and - eventually - die as a result.

The Stoics believed in living "in accordance with Nature" - more accurately, it translates as "according to the way things are meant to change and grow".

This means that since we've evolved to extract nutrients from animals and animal products, it is moral to kill and eat these - and, consequently, vegans and others following extreme diets, are immoral.

Does this make sense so far?

One might argue that if we develop a means of artificially-growing animal-protein to provide such nutrients without having to kill any actual animal, then we could get around this restriction to living a vegan life-style, and thus live "morally" according to a vegan's perspective - but that's another story.

For now, we need to eat animals and animal products to live. Not to do so, is immoral.

For a vegan parent to not feed their child properly would be immoral, given the consequences - just as immoral as a recent case where a man prevented life-guards from rescuing his drowning daughter lest she be "defiled" by their touch. She drowned.

Another aspect of our behaviour stems from our being social animals: the old adage - in all its cultural forms - of "do unto others as you would be done by". Since we've evolved as social animals, this should not be a surprising outcome of genetics rather than societies.

There are perhaps too many such examples to cover in a short answer like this, but it should give you an idea of how evolution underpins and is a foundation for everything.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:11 pm
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:Then what exactly are biologically hardwired morals? Also, how do you explain how morals from society to society differ and have changed over time, when we as humans have changed very little in the past couple of centuries?

Look at biologically-based morality in its simplest form by comparing carnivores and herbivores.

For carnivores, killing and eating other animals is moral; in contrast, for herbivores, killing and eating animals is not.

This is biologically-based morality at its simplest.

I realise I have shortened your full reply, but your theme was consistent, and I disagree with it.
Humans can live healthy lives without meat products, but it does require significant balancing of foods consumed.
My principal disagreement is attaching "morality" to what we eat from an evolutionary context, as distinct from a social context (taboos, laws and the like).
I eat meat because someone else makes it available. I do the same with vegetables. The difference is that I grow some vegetables and have no problem eating what they produce: I can eat a tomato without killing the plant. I do not keep animals and if I did I personally would not be able to kill one to eat its protein. I have no view on the morality of eating flora or fauna as I see that cultures have needed to survive on what is best available, and I respect that it is a choice people make depending on circumstances.
If morality is predicated on what we eat, we could all be in trouble when the only food left is the person next to you.
Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:01 am
surreptitious57Posts: 208Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:09 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

tuxbox wrote:
Also how do you explain how morals from society to society differ and have changed
over time when we as humans have changed very little in the past couple of centuries

Morals may vary from society to society and over time but what has not changed is the principle of morality
itself. Though this is not exclusive to humans. For in any pack species there has to be order and discipline
This is usually maintained by the adoption of a hierarchy that everyone recognises and knows where their
place is in the pecking order. Hence why alpha males exist in those societies much as they do in our own

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:03 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

red wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Look at biologically-based morality in its simplest form by comparing carnivores and herbivores.

For carnivores, killing and eating other animals is moral; in contrast, for herbivores, killing and eating animals is not.

This is biologically-based morality at its simplest.

I realise I have shortened your full reply, but your theme was consistent, and I disagree with it.
Humans can live healthy lives without meat products, but it does require significant balancing of foods consumed.
My principal disagreement is attaching "morality" to what we eat from an evolutionary context, as distinct from a social context (taboos, laws and the like).
I eat meat because someone else makes it available. I do the same with vegetables. The difference is that I grow some vegetables and have no problem eating what they produce: I can eat a tomato without killing the plant. I do not keep animals and if I did I personally would not be able to kill one to eat its protein. I have no view on the morality of eating flora or fauna as I see that cultures have needed to survive on what is best available, and I respect that it is a choice people make depending on circumstances.
If morality is predicated on what we eat, we could all be in trouble when the only food left is the person next to you.

We're omnivores - we need to eat both flora and fauna to be healthy. Health isn't just the merely physical aspect of this but the mental - a number of deficiencies result in mental health problems.

There are vitamins that can only be gotten through animal products in a normal diet - extreme diets are unhealthy, and - in that context - immoral.

A random article chosen from a quick Google search:

Top 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets Are a Terrible Idea

Morality can't just be society-based - as if societies have nothing to do with our biological evolution: they are the result of this plus our environments - but the basis is biological.

Since eating mostly involves the death of something else - whether animals or vegetables (tubers, in particular) - food is the most basic of moral issues.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:58 pm
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:We're omnivores - we need to eat both flora and fauna to be healthy. Health isn't just the merely physical aspect of this but the mental - a number of deficiencies result in mental health problems.

There are vitamins that can only be gotten through animal products in a normal diet - extreme diets are unhealthy, and - in that context - immoral.

A random article chosen from a quick Google search:

Top 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets Are a Terrible Idea

Morality can't just be society-based - as if societies have nothing to do with our biological evolution: they are the result of this plus our environments - but the basis is biological.

Since eating mostly involves the death of something else - whether animals or vegetables (tubers, in particular) - food is the most basic of moral issues.

Kindest regards,

James

I again disagree.
We are omnivores because we can eat flora and fauna, not because we have to. The 40% of India's population which is vegetarian are not on "extreme diets", and nor are the majority of the many millions elsewhere across the world who have made lifestyle choices to exclude meat. As I said previously, a vegetarian diet needs to be balanced to be healthy: I realise meats offer a better path to overall nutrition and not as much effort is needed to achieve balance. I do not advocate vegetarianism, but I would never tell someone who has a cultural tradition of not eating meat that there were acting without morals.
I take particular issue with your comment about "eating mostly involving the death of something else". As I see it, there is a gulf between killing an animal to take its protein and harvesting a crop of <multiple choices>. Our fruit trees, for example, are decades old and offer substantial crops year after year. Furthermore, I would not be concerned about eating crops from plants which had died, but could not say that for an animal.
What is not moral when it comes to food is denying others access, rather than choice.
Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:34 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

red wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:We're omnivores - we need to eat both flora and fauna to be healthy. Health isn't just the merely physical aspect of this but the mental - a number of deficiencies result in mental health problems.

There are vitamins that can only be gotten through animal products in a normal diet - extreme diets are unhealthy, and - in that context - immoral.

A random article chosen from a quick Google search:

Top 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets Are a Terrible Idea

Morality can't just be society-based - as if societies have nothing to do with our biological evolution: they are the result of this plus our environments - but the basis is biological.

Since eating mostly involves the death of something else - whether animals or vegetables (tubers, in particular) - food is the most basic of moral issues.

Kindest regards,

James

I again disagree.
We are omnivores because we can eat flora and fauna, not because we have to. The 40% of India's population which is vegetarian are not on "extreme diets", and nor are the majority of the many millions elsewhere across the world who have made lifestyle choices to exclude meat. As I said previously, a vegetarian diet needs to be balanced to be healthy: I realise meats offer a better path to overall nutrition and not as much effort is needed to achieve balance. I do not advocate vegetarianism, but I would never tell someone who has a cultural tradition of not eating meat that there were acting without morals.
I take particular issue with your comment about "eating mostly involving the death of something else". As I see it, there is a gulf between killing an animal to take its protein and harvesting a crop of <multiple choices>. Our fruit trees, for example, are decades old and offer substantial crops year after year. Furthermore, I would not be concerned about eating crops from plants which had died, but could not say that for an animal.
What is not moral when it comes to food is denying others access, rather than choice.

Although we are omnivores because we've evolved to get our nutrition from both flora and fauna, it does mean we have to eat both under normal circumstances. The only way we can get around this is to use B12 injections or tablets/pills to make up the deficits of not eating a balanced diet that includes both flora and fauna.

Vegetarianism is not meat-free: vegetarians eat "white meat" - fish, chicken, and eggs - as well as dairy products. As such, it's not a extreme diet.

Veganism, on the other hand, is extreme - there's also a variant where they only eat fruit.

Although vegetables and fruits often don't entail killing the plants/bushes/trees that provide such, it sometimes does. With regard to animals, it always involves the death of such.

If the taking of life is considered immoral, why should one make exceptions for food? This is the argument of the "Devil's Lieutenant": if you could go back in time to kill Hitler to stop the Holocaust, would you do it?

With all due respect, red, morality isn't as simple as you appear to think.

However, I would agree with your last statement as one aspect of morality.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:05 pm
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:Although vegetables and fruits often don't entail killing the plants/bushes/trees that provide such, it sometimes does. With regard to animals, it always involves the death of such.

If the taking of life is considered immoral, why should one make exceptions for food? This is the argument of the "Devil's Lieutenant": if you could go back in time to kill Hitler to stop the Holocaust, would you do it?

First, I am talking about meat free diets and not any strict definition of vegetarianism or similar. Essentially I am talking about a diet which does not include foods which have been derived from the act of killing the host (or deliberate harm to it as is achieved in obtaining foi gras). I see you cleverly attributed "killing" to plants and bushes, which is a rare practice for gathering such food, and "death" to animals. The difference is that the animals are deliberately killed to provide the food.
I am not making any moral judgement here. I personally have caught fish to take home and eat, and thought nothing of it at the time. If I had to do it in order to live I would do it again without moralising over the action. It's what all species do to survive.
The question arising with respect to morality and food from these example is IF we really need to continue to kill other animals to survive at this stage of human evolution. In modern cultures we seem to have the means not to. In some cultures a choice has been made generations ago not to.
I do not suggest moralising over these matters is trivial.
Finally, I consider your Devil's Lieutenant example a poor choice as it has a consistency to the points you are making, and not mine.
Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:56 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

red wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Although vegetables and fruits often don't entail killing the plants/bushes/trees that provide such, it sometimes does. With regard to animals, it always involves the death of such.

If the taking of life is considered immoral, why should one make exceptions for food? This is the argument of the "Devil's Lieutenant": if you could go back in time to kill Hitler to stop the Holocaust, would you do it?

First, I am talking about meat free diets and not any strict definition of vegetarianism or similar. Essentially I am talking about a diet which does not include foods which have been derived from the act of killing the host (or deliberate harm to it as is achieved in obtaining foi gras).

Then you're talking about veganism or variants thereof.

red wrote:I see you cleverly attributed "killing" to plants and bushes, which is a rare practice for gathering such food, and "death" to animals. The difference is that the animals are deliberately killed to provide the food.
I am not making any moral judgement here. I personally have caught fish to take home and eat, and thought nothing of it at the time. If I had to do it in order to live I would do it again without moralising over the action. It's what all species do to survive.

I was picking up on your apparent distinction between the death - "killing" - of flora and fauna.

I have no particular issue either - I'm a vegetarian myself - although I'm often amused by those who claim that they don't eat meat whilst declaring themselves to be vegetarian: as if fish and chicken aren't meat. They confuse "white meat" as not being meat on the grounds it's not "red meat". :roll:

red wrote:The question arising with respect to morality and food from these example is IF we really need to continue to kill other animals to survive at this stage of human evolution. In modern cultures we seem to have the means not to. In some cultures a choice has been made generations ago not to.
I do not suggest moralising over these matters is trivial.[/quoted]
Understood, red, as I mentioned earlier, there appears to be a tendency to apply morality to these issues unevenly.

red wrote:Finally, I consider your Devil's Lieutenant example a poor choice as it has a consistency to the points you are making, and not mine.

I'd disagree with this for the reason I noted in the earlier post.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:13 am
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:Then you're talking about veganism or variants thereof.

No, as I never excluded animal products derived without killing, such as milk or honey. But this is a sideshow as it's not the definitions which are important, it is the acts of those who gather the food. And then only to the extent we can determine if there is a morality around what we eat or why.

Dragan Glas wrote:
red wrote:Finally, I consider your Devil's Lieutenant example a poor choice as it has a consistency to the points you are making, and not mine.

I'd disagree with this for the reason I noted in the earlier post.

Then convince me that addressing morality with respect to food is the same as for quasi extrajudicial killing.

(edited to fix the quote tags)
Last edited by red on Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:39 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Look at biologically-based morality in its simplest form by comparing carnivores and herbivores.



For carnivores, killing and eating other animals is moral; in contrast, for herbivores, killing and eating animals is not.

This is biologically-based morality at its simplest.

Like many other creatures, we're omnivores - we eat both flora and fauna to survive.

Vegans, and other dietary extremists, insist that eating animals and/or animal products is morally wrong. Yet, as omnivores, we need to eat animals and/or animal products in order to live - we've evolved to get certain nutrients from both flora and fauna: if we leave out either one, we'll develop various health problems, and - eventually - die as a result.

The Stoics believed in living "in accordance with Nature" - more accurately, it translates as "according to the way things are meant to change and grow".

This means that since we've evolved to extract nutrients from animals and animal products, it is moral to kill and eat these - and, consequently, vegans and others following extreme diets, are immoral.

Does this make sense so far?

One might argue that if we develop a means of artificially-growing animal-protein to provide such nutrients without having to kill any actual animal, then we could get around this restriction to living a vegan life-style, and thus live "morally" according to a vegan's perspective - but that's another story.

For now, we need to eat animals and animal products to live. Not to do so, is immoral.

For a vegan parent to not feed their child properly would be immoral, given the consequences - just as immoral as a recent case where a man prevented life-guards from rescuing his drowning daughter lest she be "defiled" by their touch. She drowned.

Another aspect of our behaviour stems from our being social animals: the old adage - in all its cultural forms - of "do unto others as you would be done by". Since we've evolved as social animals, this should not be a surprising outcome of genetics rather than societies.

There are perhaps too many such examples to cover in a short answer like this, but it should give you an idea of how evolution underpins and is a foundation for everything.

Kindest regards,

James



I do not see how this is hardwired morals in regards to what we eat? This example seems to me be just Nature taking it's course and has nothing to do with morals. it seems to be a neutral subject, since other animals do not think in the same way we do. They kill and eat to survive.

The Vegan/omnivore debate seems to be more of a social issue not a biological issue. Yes, Vegans consider eating animals immoral but again I do not see how that fits into biological evolution?

Thou shall not kill, lie, steal and so on, seems to be hardwired biological evolution. However, owning slaves, killing for god/s, cheating on your significant other, divorce, abortion, human sacrifice, sex with minors, incest, and so on, seems to be social evolution, is it not?

The example of the father letting his daughter drown also seems to be a social issue, and yes we (westerns) find this immoral, but the father practicing his religious belief is what led to her death.

The Vegan that let her child die due to poor diet is also a social issue.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:48 am
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

tuxbox wrote:The example of the father letting his daughter drown also seems to be a social issue, and yes we (westerns) find this immoral, but the father practising his religious belief is what led to her death.

The Vegan that let her child die due to poor diet is also a social issue.

Red rags to a bull.
Saving a life is a moral act. Deliberating allowing death when the power to save was an option is morally fraught.
Not feeding your child properly, and failing to recognise it is morally deficient.
These circumstances strike at the heart of so called objective morality.
Irrespective of culture or society, are there practices which defy universal moral standards, and why?
Then, who sets the standards?
Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:11 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

red wrote:
tuxbox wrote:The example of the father letting his daughter drown also seems to be a social issue, and yes we (westerns) find this immoral, but the father practising his religious belief is what led to her death.

The Vegan that let her child die due to poor diet is also a social issue.

Red rags to a bull.
Saving a life is a moral act. Deliberating allowing death when the power to save was an option is morally fraught.
Not feeding your child properly, and failing to recognise it is morally deficient.
These circumstances strike at the heart of so called objective morality.
Irrespective of culture or society, are there practices which defy universal moral standards, and why?
Then, who sets the standards?


The Vegan that let her child die was due to stupid ideology, therefor it is not biological morals. The same goes for the stupid father that let his daughter die. These examples are not immoral because of biology, they are immoral because our current society finds these acts abhorrent.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:16 am
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

tuxbox wrote:[The Vegan that let her child die was due to stupid ideology, therefore it is not biological morals. The same goes for the stupid father that let his daughter die. These examples are not immoral because of biology, they are immoral because our current society finds these acts abhorrent.

The issue here is why you know it was wrong.
A way to tackle it is to think back to when you first realised these acts would always be wrong.
Did anyone need to tell you?
Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:57 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2745Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Greetings,

We are born with certain behaviours - others are learned, either from learning through direct interaction with others or through being taught, such as a given language, customs and/or traditions, including religious.

As I mentioned before, smiling is universal - it's hard-wired into us. This triggers responses which are equally hard-wired into us.

The ones that are learned, rather than taught, generally occur in early childhood, even as babies. In dogs, for example, puppies learn not to hurt each other through mouthing their own and others' limbs. Mouthing their own hurts at some level of pressure - mouthing another's doesn't hurt directly but the yelp of a sibling causes them to stop out of fear of reprisal. Whence the fear of reprisal? Bear in mind that no adult is involved here to intervene as a teacher.

Although we have a certain amount of aggression within us for personal survival, this is tempered by our need to get along as social animals - this results in a certain compunction against hurting others: it's evolutionary, not learned or taught.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:25 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

We are born with certain behaviours - others are learned, either from learning through direct interaction with others or through being taught, such as a given language, customs and/or traditions, including religious.

As I mentioned before, smiling is universal - it's hard-wired into us. This triggers responses which are equally hard-wired into us.

The ones that are learned, rather than taught, generally occur in early childhood, even as babies. In dogs, for example, puppies learn not to hurt each other through mouthing their own and others' limbs. Mouthing their own hurts at some level of pressure - mouthing another's doesn't hurt directly but the yelp of a sibling causes them to stop out of fear of reprisal. Whence the fear of reprisal? Bear in mind that no adult is involved here to intervene as a teacher.

Although we have a certain amount of aggression within us for personal survival, this is tempered by our need to get along as social animals - this results in a certain compunction against hurting others: it's evolutionary, not learned or taught.

Kindest regards,

James



Agreed!
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:03 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Critiques of my arguments for the existence of God?

red wrote:
tuxbox wrote:[The Vegan that let her child die was due to stupid ideology, therefore it is not biological morals. The same goes for the stupid father that let his daughter die. These examples are not immoral because of biology, they are immoral because our current society finds these acts abhorrent.

The issue here is why you know it was wrong.
A way to tackle it is to think back to when you first realised these acts would always be wrong.
Did anyone need to tell you?


I now agree with you on the Vegan issue, however, the father letting his daughter die, would not be considered wrong in certain cultures. Just as stoning women in the Middle East is not considered immoral in those cultures. Where is my logic going wrong here?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:49 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 77 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests