Riddle me this Athiests...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by SFKNOLEG74

 

But why? These ideas have immense subjective value with or without God. You seem to suggest that without God life becomes meaningless when in truth if life came about without a creator we are the most important thing to ever come out of the Universe. Being made from dirt by a big guy in the sky is lame compared to slowly evolving into our current sentient state, if you ask me but that's just my opinion on the subject.

Without God there would be nothing. But let's say for argument's sake that there is no God. If there is no God, then where does our morality and reason derive from? Answer: evolution. But evolution is not sentient... it just is. In other words, in a God-less world, our reason and morality would come from something unthinking. My question is then, why should we follow it? Why should we respect it?

Have you looked into the scientific evidence for evolution. Its overwhelming.

I accept the theory of evolution.

Also, you may be interested in knowing that I've never been baptized and that my family is not religious. The only times I've been in a church were when somebody died.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

its not that atheists dont want religious people to believe what they believe its just that they believe " it is right to push our religion on other people who choose not to listen to our teachings because our teachings have taugh us the ultimate meaning of life and if anyone says any different they are evil and will burn in hell or they are simply wrong, God forgive them." as atheists as well as humans I believe missionaries and christian camps and people who come to your door to hassle and recruit you that's pushing your boundaries... everyone has their own path, how arrogant and hypocritical to say that your almighty God has a plan and your preaching is a major part of it, if your version of God created the heavens and the earth im sure his simple passed down words will eventually get to those who wish to hear it otherwise have respect for those who do not want to listen to you bable about ressurection and how certain people will go to hell for certain actions or beliefs that contradict your own. Respect their beliefs and they sha'll respect yours. but for an organized religion to truely respect individuals they would have to stay secluded in their sects and teachings and simply wait for people to come to them and not vice verse, not we will help you if you join our religion. it's we will help you because you are fellow humans and if you just so happen to be rediculously interested in our relgion you're welcome to join and I will not sugar coat our beliefs IF i was christian and believed in that the first thing i'd show a recruit is the video of jesus camp.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ChickenPie

Without God there would be nothing.

You're assuming that the default for the Universe is nothing. But as far back as science can extrapolate there has always been something. So why the assumption?

then where does our morality and reason derive from? Answer: evolution.

Do a bit of research on the evolution of altruism and morality and you will see the evolutionary precedents for moral behavior. Human beings are communal organisms, we form societies, these started out small as family units or tribes. Evolution, over time, has built our brains to reward us for beneficial behaviors and punish us for unhelpful ones. Something which isn't good for the group generally isn't good for the individuals. The issue is that religious believers contend that morality is objective and comes from God...

But this can be shown not to be the case. Just look at how the laws have changed in the last few centuries. Back when religion ruled in Europe worshiping a God who wasn't the state sponsored deity could get you put to death. Fast forward to America and we've got Freedom of Religion as one of our main tenants, AS OUR FIRST AMENDMENT. Yet Freedom of religion goes directly against the first of the ten commandments.

Even in the Bible morals change, in the Old Testament people are often commanded by God to commit genocide and no one seems bothered by this, fast forward to Jesus and its "turn the other cheek" and "if you are even angry at your brother you are guilty of murder."

Morality is not objective, obviously, though it does have evolutionary precedent.

my god titen id love to go for a spot of tea and converse about stuff lol you have way of putting things my friend haha

reply to post by AndreDC


Thanks Andre, if there's anything you want to discuss shoot me a U2U, but please don't derail this thread any further

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Without God there would be nothing.

You're assuming that the default for the Universe is nothing. But as far back as science can extrapolate there has always been something. So why the assumption?

So you believe the universe is eternal?

Do a bit of research on the evolution of altruism and morality and you will see the evolutionary precedents for moral behavior. Human beings are communal organisms, we form societies, these started out small as family units or tribes. Evolution, over time, has built our brains to reward us for beneficial behaviors and punish us for unhelpful ones. Something which isn't good for the group generally isn't good for the individuals. The issue is that religious believers contend that morality is objective and comes from God...

Not to sound like a jackass, but I already knew all of this, which is why I answered my own question with "evolution." My point is why should we respect moral values and reason if we know they're the product of an insentient source (evolution)?


[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie


It could be but we're not sure yet. Its one of those unanswered questions. I'm just wondering why nothing is the default if as far as we're concerned there's always been something. Science has only gotten back to the split second the Big Bang took place, at that time everything in the Universe existed as part of a super dense singularity. Before that we just don't know...

Why should we respect morals? Because immoral behaviors are generally bad for us. Raping and killing and pillaging are against what we were taught AND would be counter-intuitive to our own survival and acceptance in the group. It doesn't take a genius to see that lying in some circumstances gets us into trouble BUT lying can also be necessary at times which is why it is sometimes considered socially acceptable.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

It could be but we're not sure yet. Its one of those unanswered questions. I'm just wondering why nothing is the default if as far as we're concerned there's always been something. Science has only gotten back to the split second the Big Bang took place, at that time everything in the Universe existed as part of a super dense singularity. Before that we just don't know...

I don't know either, but since I believe in God, then I'm leaning towards there being a time where there was nothing, which may be the time before the big bang. Some scientists believe the universe is eternal and has always existed in one form or another... I just go one step further by saying there is indeed something eternal, but that it is sentient, and that it isn't the universe itself. Why do I go one step further? Because I think it explains why the universe appears to have some kind of order. Well, enough order to fulfill the requirements for life on certain planets. It's a hard pill for me to swallow to believe that the universe and everything that has transpired within it is completely arbitrary.

Why should we respect morals? Because immoral behaviors are generally bad for us.

Careful, you're using rationality and morality that more or less derived from evolution (or from teachings by beings who are products of evolution) to arrive to the conclusion that certain kinds of behavior should be considered wrong.

So I'll ask again, why do you insist on trusting your morality and rationality if you know they're derived from an insentient source?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie

to arrive to the conclusion that certain kinds of behavior should be considered wrong.

Right... So what?

It is societies consensus that tells us murder is wrong as well as the morality we are taught in our youth. There is also an evolutionary precedent that we, as a social species, shouldn't go around killing each other. Yet it seems nature, the evolutionary precedent, can be overridden by NURTURE.

Centuries ago in certain Mesoamerican cultures Human Sacrifice was practiced openly, for centuries people were killed openly in the name of one God or another and in many cultures certain types of murder or killing were deemed okay. Slavery is another example. If you went back and time and told the Roman Empire that keeping slaves was wrong they'd laugh, it was socially acceptable. Does that make it morally right? No. But at the time its societal benefit was perceived to outweigh the risk and racism/demonizing groups different from theirs helped keep it that way.

So we see that morality is part nature part nurture and is fluid and subjective. Yes its a fallible system but no part of human society is perfect.

Just because there's no God doesn't mean murder is suddenly a good idea, its still detrimental to society, causes pain in the person being killed and those who know the person, causes their consciousness ideas and creativity to be lost, etc. Murder is bad not because God says so but because empathy says so, as well as simple logic.

If God is the source of morality than anything God says goes right? So then God could command something immoral, like murder (which he does in the Bible repeatedly) and because God commands it that makes it okay according to the God derived morals argument. But then if anything God defines as moral or good is moral and good than morals are subjectively dependent on God's Will and are no longer objective. Like I said the Biblical God changes the rules up numerous times making the morality subjective and not objective.

Adding God to the equation just seems to complicate things to an unnecessary degree, it also raises the question of "Where are these morals?"

Are they in a sacred text? Are they coded into our brains (and if they are what's to differentiate them from evolutionary precedent?)? Like I said to me at least adding God just complicates things to the morality question

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

It is societies consensus that tells us murder is wrong as well as the morality we are taught in our youth. There is also an evolutionary precedent that we, as a social species, shouldn't go around killing each other. Yet it seems nature, the evolutionary precedent, can be overridden by NURTURE.

I respect you for letting me waste your time for so long, but I'm starting to feel a little guilty. You've been writing these long detailed posts, but I think you may just be complicating matters. All I want to know is why you trust your rationality and morality, if you believe it came from an insentient source (evolution). You've brought up nurture as another source of morality and you're absolutely right, but that just forces me to revise my question ever so slightly.

Just because there's no God doesn't mean murder is suddenly a good idea, its still detrimental to society

I'm not necessarily saying that murder would suddenly be a good idea without God, but it certainly couldn't be called a "bad" one either.

You say murder is detrimental to society... So? Is that a bad thing? Evidently, you think it is, but you only think it is because of what you've been taught and more importantly, because you're a product of evolution. I'm just trying to figure out why you trust evolution enough to trust your rationality and morality, which is leading you to believe that something like murder is "bad."

If God is the source of morality than anything God says goes right? So then God could command something immoral, like murder (which he does in the Bible repeatedly)

True, because God preceded everything and everything is derived from God... To say God is doing something immoral is ridiculous for those same reasons. By what authority can you say God is doing something wrong? You're either with Him or against Him. Or you are either good or evil, while God is always good.

because God commands it that makes it okay according to the God derived morals argument. But then if anything God defines as moral or good is moral and good than morals are subjectively dependent on God's Will and are no longer objective.

I'd still say God's morality is objective because He is the one who created this game in the first place.

Like I said the Biblical God changes the rules up numerous times making the morality subjective and not objective.

Again, I'm not here to defend the Bible... and I've never even brought the Bible up once during our conversation. I'm not Christian, nor am I Jewish.

But if there is indeed a God, then of course whatever He said would be gold. And how could you say his morality is subjective just because He changed His mind? His will would still take precedence over everyone else's, which is what is important.

Are they in a sacred text? Are they coded into our brains (and if they are what's to differentiate them from evolutionary precedent?)? Like I said to me at least adding God just complicates things to the morality question

I believe in God and accept the theory of evolution, so I have no problem respecting my rationality and sense of morality. On the other hand, you accept the theory of evolution, but believe no intelligence is behind it. I'm just wondering why you have so much faith in your sense of morality and rationality if you believe it ultimately came from an insentient source. What's keeping you from rebelling against your feelings and rationality? Survival? Laws? Pain? ...Those kinds of answers just set the question back a step or two. For instance, your urge to survive is merely an evolutionary trait that you believe comes from a source that has no intelligence behind it.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie


Do I trust human morality even though its from an insentient force? Well its not, most of it is from us its just our societal morality stems from a baseline evolutionary precedent - we create the morality though, whatever we deem helpful to society is more likely to be considered moral.

For instance society gave up on saying that premarital sex is immoral but the Pope still goes around talking about how condoms are bad and abstinence only should be taught in schools... Morality has changed but his religion refuses to change with it.

Do I trust it though? Not entirely, like I said its part of human society and therefore can be wrong. For instance I think there are things generally considered immoral that should be wrong, like gay people getting married. Many are against it on what they deem as moral grounds but society has it wrong in this case because they are incorrectly assuming sexual attraction to one sex or the other is a choice. That's where science comes in, it can sort out the facts and allow society to make better informed decisions.

You say murder is detrimental to society... So? Is that a bad thing? Evidently, you think it is, but you only think it is because of what you've been taught and more importantly, because you're a product of evolution. "bad."

Morality generally is "if its bad for the group don't do it". Murder is detrimental and therefore is deemed bad, its not just what we're taught its what society has agreed upon AND put into law. Remember that its not all evolution, evolution just provides a brain with a basic moral framework, we fill in the gaps by deciding what to fill that framework with.

Again, I'm not here to defend the Bible... and I've never even brought the Bible up once during our conversation. I'm not Christian, nor am I Jewish.

As a former Christian its easier for me to make the point using a known and well understood point of reference. Most people in Western Society know a bit about Christianity more so than other religions.

The argument still stands though, if morals did come from God there would be a problem of "Well where does God get his morals?".

And how could you say his morality is subjective just because He changed His mind?

Objective morality would be constant, it wouldn't change. Being objective means its based on facts and NOT the whim of any being with free will. If God has free will enough to declare something like murder as morally okay than he is no better than humanity when we used to commit human sacrifice. If God can change what is moral and what is not moral on a whim it is subjectively linked to God's opinion and is not objective or unchanging.

What's keeping you from rebelling against your feelings and rationality?

What's keeping from rebelling against society? A good question. I guess because I'd prefer to live within it rather than become an outcast pariah or end up in prison. Don't get me wrong I don't just go with the flow and conform on every point (case in point I'm an atheist in a world where the majority have faith in a higher power). Its not that I trust human morality, I don't, I think we've been pretty lousy about how we treat each other but the more we learn about ourselves and the Universe the better our morals get.

For instance, your urge to survive is merely an evolutionary trait that you believe comes from a source that has no intelligence behind it.

Why does there need to be intelligence behind the desire to survive in order for it to be valid? I think its fairly obvious why organisms want to survive, to pass on their genes. But as the first sentient beings to evolve on this planet we now can have other reasons, like fear of death or ambitions of things to accomplish, write a novel, paint a painting, tell the world's funniest joke. All these things might seem trivial in the grand scheme of things but why does that mean that they can't be meaningful to an individual or even to a society if they catch on? I just don't think there's evidence for or a need for God in order to make life meaningful...

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Do I trust human morality even though its from an insentient force? Well its not, most of it is from us its just our societal morality stems from a baseline evolutionary precedent - we create the morality though, whatever we deem helpful to society is more likely to be considered moral.

People and the zeitgeist are more or less morally anchored by principles that are nothing more than evolutionary traits that were found to be useful for increasing the chances of the survival of our species. There will never be a time where murder (random or unjust killing) will be considered a good thing because of this programming, unless millions of years pass and for whatever reason evolution finds--through the process of natural selection--that murder is somehow beneficial. And the rationale you and society use to conclude that certain behaviors are useful for society is also anchored by evolutionary traits. Whether or not something is useful or whether or not something being useful is a good thing is subjective. Why is behavior that is "useful" a "good" thing? Because your brain--a product of evolution--tells you so. Again, I'm just wondering why you have so much faith in the values evolution has imprinted onto you if you know these values have no intelligence behind them. You could have just as easily been programmed to think that raping babies is a "good" thing. You may think that disgusting, but you wouldn't if evolution were a little different. Evolution is what it is.

What is your reason for not rebelling against it?

Morality generally is "if its bad for the group don't do it". Murder is detrimental and therefore is deemed bad

According to?

The argument still stands though, if morals did come from God there would be a problem of "Well where does God get his morals?".

Where did evolution get its so-called ideas that survival is a good thing? Why do you accept the idea that survival is a "good" thing?

If you're entertaining the notion of an eternal being with unlimited power and knowledge, then what sense does it make to ask where He got His morals from? He didn't get them from anywhere because preceded everything.

Objective reality would be constant, it wouldn't change. Being objective means its based on facts and NOT the whim of any being with free will.

Yes, but the facts are the creation of this being. This being can indeed change the facts on a whim. So, of course His will would be objective.

What's keeping from rebelling against society? A good question. I guess because I'd prefer to live within it rather than become an outcast pariah or end up in prison

Why though? I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, but I'm trying to drive the point home that your values and rationality are the product of evolution... even if some of your values and thinking methods do come from society--society is made up of humans... which are also products of evolution. You're a being that was born from a system with the illusion that you think outside of it.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Why does there need to be intelligence behind the desire to survive in order for it to be valid?

To give it some kind of merit. I'd have more respect for a system that was put in place for a reason by an intelligence, rather than a system that popped into existence billions of years ago and just is. I find it frightening that many atheists do not question their own perception, rationality, and morality, even though their line of logic leads them to conclude that everything they use to perceive, understand, and interact with the world originated from a system that just so happens to exist and just so happens to do what it does for no reason at all. You ask them, why don't you question it? And they answer with, "because I don't like pain," or "I want to live, learn, and survive!" but these are all ideas ultimately derived from evolution itself!

I think its fairly obvious why organisms want to survive, to pass on their genes.

Yeah, but why does that matter? Why should we care about such things?



[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

Let me put it this way... since we are all products of evolution, we are all completely bias. However, since I believe in God, I think our bias has a purpose. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God, then you believe our bias just is. Why would you trust or respect a system that just is? I'm not saying you couldn't, but I don't see why anyone would. You can't be grateful to a system that has no grand purpose, and could have just as easily never existed, or have done things differently if its nature were different. It's not like evolution made a conscience decision to do things in a certain way and to slowly develop life that could one day be called human. If there is no God, then we have no reason to respect or to place any faith in anything that evolution has done.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie

You could have just as easily been programmed to think that raping babies is a "good" thing.

No... BUT WAIT, isn't that exactly what you're arguing God could do? You say later on that God could alter facts and change his mind and whatever he decides is moral is objectively moral. In that case GOD could decide raping babies is good MORE easily than society, which needs to find a benefit for the behavior AND reach a consensus first.

In order for it to be considered good it has to be good for society... how would that EVER be good for society?

We're programmed to generally think that murder is wrong because we are a social species and early on we figured out it wasn't a good idea for group dynamics if we kill within the group, we need a group to survive. We take care of babies instead of raping them because of evolution not in spite of it. There are species on this Earth that devour their own young, typically these are less successful than us humans, because we have a nurturing instinct based in an evolutionary precedent. However Evolution only plays part of the role here, our moral framework is highly subjective, this is why in some cultures infanticide was practiced on sickly or malformed children - it was deemed easier on society to put them out of their misery than to be weighed down by their disability. So murder CAN be deemed morally justified by a society without an evolutionary precedent placing a prohibition or allowing it.

That's the advantage of being sentient, we can guide our own evolution, we have the basic framework but societal consensus makes the rules that fill that frame.

I'm just wondering why you have so much faith in the values evolution has imprinted onto you if you know these values have no intelligence behind them.

I don't have faith in them. Like I said there are certain generally accepted rules of morality I don't like (the example I gave was the gay marriage issue). They do have intelligence behind them - us, and that's why morals can be fallible, they are a human social construct. Its pretty obvious we get our morals from ourselves and not God, the only reason I follow most of them is that I tend to agree with them and was taught to but the teaching is just the beginning, you can study WHY those behaviors are considered bad.

What is your reason for not rebelling against it?

Society might peeve me a bit but I'd rather be peeved on the inside than some kind of outcast hermit.

According to?

Society and the vast majority of individuals within it. If you want we can do pros and cons. We are a social species, it doesn't make sense for us to kill our own, however in some cases people can be convinced to do just that.

Society isn't always right but its clear that they determine morality. They might not determine every individual's morality though, there are degrees of variance between individuals within a society but for the most part the areas of agreement are larger than those of disagreement leading to a general consensus.

Where did evolution get its so-called ideas that survival is a good thing?

My answer would be that genes are basically self-replicating, their function is merely to reproduce in perpetuity. Most organisms do this via sexual reproduction. So it wasn't an idea, its the fundamental principal of the first proto-organisms, reproduce before you die. They were self-replicators, that was their only function essentially, to reproduce. Organisms have become more complex and more specialized but our general prerogative remains the same - pass on your genes. Why is it that way? I honestly don't know.

This being can indeed change the facts on a whim.

Than what is the point of anything? If tomorrow I could wake up and the sun was blue and I was a donkey and apple sauce was raining from the sky than what is the point of using reason, logic or science to study the world? And yet everything we know about the Universe is based upon the fact that we KNOW it doesn't work that way. Even if God can violate the laws of nature he doesn't appear to, ever.

So, of course His will would be objective.

No, a fluctuation of the perception of fact within the mind of God would be subjective. Objective would mean, by definition, unchanging. Objective means it isn't based on opinion but your suggestion is that God's opinion becomes fact.

You've just destroyed the distinction between objective and subjective by stating they can both be the same thing. Another logical paradox, like the rock issue.

Why though? I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, but I'm trying to drive the point home that your values and rationality are the product of evolution

You're not being annoying, a bit redundant maybe

My rationality is not the product of evolution, though my brain that has been taught to think rationally IS. Don't confuse what you learn with what evolution has gradually programmed into the human brain. Simply because our brain capacity allows for reason and logic doesn't mean they are hard-wired into us from birth BUT maybe they are in some base form. Why would evolution have had them hard-wired into our brains if rationality and logic weren't good ways to determine how the world works and how best to survive in it?

Why don't I want to be an outcast? Because we evolved as a social species. We don't take kindly to being lonely and downtrodden by society and while some of us like to keep to the fringes of society that's better than being ostracized all the way by violating all sorts of laws and suddenly becoming a rebel just because its not objectively wrong.

You're a being that was born from and within a system with the illusion that you think outside of it.

Okay. I've studied a bit of philosophy and I've taken a look at a few world religions and different ways of thinking. Not all my ways of thinking are based on modern Western society (I'm very found of Taoism's ideas of complimentary opposites for instance). In some ways we are bound in thought by the quality of our education or language as well.

Trust me when I say I've pondered a lot of "trippy" ideas in my time and a while back I believed in many of them (aliens, Nirbiru, all that pseudoscience bunk). Something happened eventually, reality sunk in and I realized many of my opinions, just like my former Christian faith, had been, well, faith based... Now I prefer to go with things that can be verified by evidence. I'm well aware society is an artificial construct, its artificial because we created it and we control which way it goes - its an illusion that we guide which helps us further our species.

What is the practical value of rebelling fully from society or believing in a magic man in the sky?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by ChickenPie

rather than a system that popped into existence billions of years ago and just is.

Well we've just hit a stalemate, this is the first thing you've said that makes me want to bang my head into a wall. Alas, it seemed to be going so well.

If you read up on abiogenesis you'll find that life didn't just "pop into existence billions of years ago". It likely took millions of years for self-replicating molecules to gradually increase in complexity forming the first proto-cells and eventually the first actual lifeforms. After than natural selection takes over, you know, only those fit for survival make it far enough to pass on their genes.

The only real rule is just that - pass on your genes. Why it seems unlikely to you that such a rule would exist for the first organisms, who's only function was self-replication, is beyond me.

Yeah, but why does that matter? Why should we care about such things?

Well we don't necessarily have to. We've evolved far enough to be capable of free will and we can decide NOT to pass on our genes. But if you notice many human beings DO want to pass on their genes, the evolutionary programming is not easy to overcome. Why should we care? because the primary prerogative of life is - pass on your genes.

If you don't want to care about where the human race goes from here or why our species wants to pass on their genes that's fine. I for one have decided that I don't want to pass mine on, not because I would never be interested in procreating but because we currently have enough humans to ensure our survival without me passing them on.

Anyone who doesn't believe in God / Creator or a higher power of any sort needs to try '___' or mushrooms.

Should help dissolve that ego and self righteous arrogance many 'proud' atheists seem to have, and hopefully help you release that maybe you don't know everything. That there is much more to reality than you can perceive with your five simple senses.

Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by steve_oZ
Anyone who doesn't believe in God / Creator or a higher power of any sort needs to try '___' or mushrooms.

Should help dissolve that ego and self righteous arrogance many 'proud' atheists seem to have, and hopefully help you release that maybe you don't know everything. That there is much more to reality than you can perceive with your five simple senses.

Just a suggestion.

What a moronic idea. Please do not promote drug use on ATS, children do frequent this forum.

Kids, drugs are bad! They do not make you see more than there is. What they do is screw up how your brain works, causing hallucinations, poor judgment, and you could potentially end up having a bad trip. Depending upon the severity and the dosage, you could permanently damage your brain, end up in a coma, or end up dead.

Drugs do nothing to expand your understanding of reality. Only through observation and experimentation and critical thinking can you even begin to understand our universe. Don't be an idiot, stay away from hallucinogenics.

Originally posted by steve_oZ
Anyone who doesn't believe in God / Creator or a higher power of any sort needs to try '___' or mushrooms.

Should help dissolve that ego and self righteous arrogance many 'proud' atheists seem to have, and hopefully help you release that maybe you don't know everything. That there is much more to reality than you can perceive with your five simple senses.

Just a suggestion.

I am a proud atheist who has used all manners of psychedelic substances in the past. I simply have the good sense to know that drug-induced states of consciousness are simply that and nothing more.

I've met lots of people with your attitude: those who espace reality and then believe that their drug trips ARE reality. Sad.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

rather than a system that popped into existence billions of years ago and just is.

Well we've just hit a stalemate, this is the first thing you've said that makes me want to bang my head into a wall. Alas, it seemed to be going so well.

If you read up on abiogenesis you'll find that life didn't just "pop into existence billions of years ago". It likely took millions of years for self-replicating molecules to gradually increase in complexity forming the first proto-cells and eventually the first actual lifeforms. After than natural selection takes over, you know, only those fit for survival make it far enough to pass on their genes.

I never wrote that life popped into existence. I wrote that the system, evolution, popped into existence billions of years ago. Even that though was hyperbole because I don't know how exactly evolution came to be But that doesn't matter... you're missing my point, again.

I want to bang my head against the wall because no matter what I write, you just don't get it. For example, I asked for the umpteenth time why we should care about survival... Your answer was so we can pass on genes... which demonstrates you don't have a clue what I'm getting at. I'm asking you why we should place importance on evolution and you're answering by explaining what evolution is, missing the boat completely. Since you don't want to answer, or you don't know how to answer, I'll answer for you. There is no reason to trust your rationality or morality if it's a product of an "is," especially if that "is" just so happened to be and was not created by an intelligent source. That's not to say you can't trust it. If you want to be an atheist and place your faith in an "is" that is evolution, then that's fine by me.

The only real rule is just that - pass on your genes. Why it seems unlikely to you that such a rule would exist for the first organisms, who's only function was self-replication, is beyond me.

Yeah, but why should we pass on our genes? Why should we try and survive? Why should we follow any of our feelings? You've never answered me.