Fiach

Of what you know, yourself is the best place to start from. You believe in evolution, a process generated by chance mutations in conjunction with environmental fitness.

Well, there may be some chance but molecular bonds set up mutations at regular intervals. So it is partly chance and partly the properties of DNA to mutate based on the nature of its organic bonds.

Yet you, no doubt, also believe that you ought not to steal purses from dear little old ladies.

That applies to Human evolution because we are primates that evolved a social system that could survive only under certain contitions. Random murder, rape, theft, abuse are socially disruptive in human societies. So those behaviours became coded in our genes for brain behaviour circuits. Not perfect because criminals, liars, and theives still occur but they are a minority and often removed from society.

But evolution does in the form of wolves that pick out the oldest and weakest members of deer herds for their sustenance.

Wolves are predators, exclusively. Their prime directive is to take the easiest to kill for food. This also benefits the prey animals by selecting FOR the survival of the swiftest, most alert, intelligent of the prey. In the wolf society, it evolved differently from human. It is based on the Alpha male and female ruling by fear. They get to eat first, the next strongest next, and weakest last. The weakest are the first to die off in hard times and never get to mate with the females. So selection is the wolf pack is for the biggest meanest, strongest wankers.

How do you explain this disconnect between what you know? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Evolution is a complex system that selects what works. For humans it is different that for wolves and for antelopes. Sometimes it favours heavy build and armour (Rhinos), speed (gazelles), intelligence and cooperativeness (humans), viciousness and coerced cooperativeness (wolves).

Take care Albert, do you realise that I am defending the Pope's position

Fiach

Albert Cipriani

Dear Defender of the Pope Fiach,
You say that
Whereas:
So now that we know this, now that we are aware that the only thing that holds us back from being socially irresponsible is our genes, why don’t you transcend those genes and do exactly what you want to do?

If I believed what you believe, I would. Why should I care that my wolf-like behavior would be counterproductive to our species? Neither you nor I am our species. We are ourselves.

If through my good pleasure, the human species is made less fit for my having been a member of it, how does that hinder me when I’m dead or alive? If through my altruistic suffering the human species is made more fit for my having been a member of it, how does that help me when I’m dead or alive?

If you are right about evolution, you have been wrongly living a righteous life. Sociopaths are the ones who are doing it right. Theists (by being good) are doing it wrong for internally consistent but essentially fairytale reasons. And atheistic evolutionists are the most pathetic fools of us all, for they are doing it wrong in spite of having the right reasons NOT to!

Give me one good reason why any one of us should allow our altruistic genes one more day of dominance over us. Now that we’ve unmasked the genetic basis for sacrifice, nobility, love, honor, country and God, I, for one, will have no more of it!

We’ve much more in common with wolves than you may think. My prime directive is no different than theirs. As you put it, it’s “to take the easiest to kill for food.” To take the easiest path, like water, the course of least resistance is what we are about were it not for that barmy gene or my Catholic religious gabberloony. So unless you can come up with a logical reason to the contrary, there will be no more damming back of my wolf instincts just so that this fecking human race can further itself over my dead body. – Albert the (Once Upon a Time) Traditional Catholic

Darkblade

The obvious reason is that Fiach doesn’t want to do those things (they would not garner him any gain, and he would very likely be punished). It should be common knowledge (and self-evident, due to the laws of cause and effect) that reasons are needed for doing things, not for not doing random things (this is obviously in respect to the classical world in which we exist).

You also seem to think that "disobeying" our genes is a trivial matter (keep in mind that Fiach (I would presume) and I do not believe in "free will"). Whatever we do is merely "obeying" our brains' caused actions. In any case, like I said, Fiach does not want to arbitrarily do things, especially when they would get him in trouble; only insane people do things at random like that. Being able to be insane is not a reason to become insane.

keyser_soze

"bargaining equilibrium and governing dynamics"

Perhaps you've heard of it, it replaced smith's theory with nash's theory stated above.....Basically it shows the maximum benefit to a group can be realized if each individual works for his own benefit and the group's. Some members fall out of it, but the institution continues as long as the majority act within the confines of this.

Or for those fundies, who all seem to believe that without THEIR religion, the world would fall into chaos(which it has seemed to avoid so far)-- "If you behave, it benefits you and the group".

Jobar

Albert:
So now that we know this, now that we are aware that the only thing that holds us back from being socially irresponsible is our genes, why don’t you transcend those genes and do exactly what you want to do?

Albert, that's just silly. If we could just 'transcend those genes' I can think of plenty of them which I would far rather transcend.

And our behaviour is only influenced by genetics. We are shaped much more by our societies- for instance if you lived in a clan of Attila's Huns, you would behave in a far more wolf-like manner than any modern human.

I point out that the belief in God is not directly linked to more humane behaviour- consider the Spanish Inquisition, or Northern Ireland, or what used to be Yugoslavia. I would say that democracy and free thought is far more conducive to what we call good behaviour than Catholicism, or indeed any other religion.

Fiach

If you are right about evolution, you have been wrongly living a righteous life. Sociopaths are the ones who are doing it right. Theists (by being good) are doing it wrong for internally consistent but essentially fairytale reasons. And atheistic evolutionists are the most pathetic fools of us all, for they are doing it wrong in spite of having the right reasons NOT to!

No, I have lived my life as a physician, scientists, family man, community leader, oraniser of charities, and animal rescue all stem from feeling good about my life. The genes make me feel good for doing good. I didn't do what I did to keep from going to Hell or offending a cruel god. Others like me, also act similarly because we are part of group evolution. It is misleading to think that only individuals evolve. It is not perfect. Some lack the full penetrance of the genes (criminals). Good religious people are also good because of their genes not necessarily because of their religion. Some of our behaviour is moulded by society as Jobar said. That explains a society like the Taliban and the Inquisition or Oliver Cromwell's harsh Theocracy in Britain. But overall the trend is favourable to genes of altruism, bonding, protection of women and children, and the golden rule.


http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~tfrisen/m...ts/prisons.htm


We have prisons because the genes are not always maximally effective. We really can't override or "transcend" our substrate.

Fiach

keyser_soze

Here! Here! Well said.:notworthy

Does it not strike one as obtuse to continuously insist what people would do without faith, when they do it everyday and it is not what they think it SHOULD be without faith? I mean there are of course those who fail to follow the encoded rule set to serve both the self and the group without harm, but there does not seem to be a line where they are atheist. In fact, it seems that there is no particular ideology accross the board for those who break the rules(at least that I can see from anecdotal evidence). Why insist there is?

Angrillori

Have nothing to do with morality...everything to do with original sin.

Did you pay attention as you were typing Al?

Morality...Original Sin
Morality...Sin

Same sentence.
Or does Sin have nothing to do with morality?

So I say pain and suffering come through natural selection coupled with random mutations, and you say that a conscious being set them upon us.
And somehow I'm the one with a bad image of the world!

(I wouldn't hold it against him if he invented all this evolution evidence just to cover up the idea he did it! Would you really want people to know if you did this to them?)
You're doing a good enough job showing the absurdity of creationism yourself though! I don't know if anyone could make you a laughingstock any better than you do already!
Again, do you pay attention as you type?

Line 1: Manna and eucharist are life sustaining foods that don't require death.
Later line: Milk and honey are the only two life sustaining foods that don't require death.

Please, at least make an attempt to be internally consistent. Start with that, then try moving on to actually making a point.

You really don't pay attention when you type!

You claim that:
You're better than me because you will talk about something you believe shouldn't be spoken of,
while I don't even believe it exists.

Sounds like only one of us should be experiencing cognitive dissonance eh?

(To spell it out for you: If I don't believe it exists, how can I believe this non-existant entity has the attribute: 'not to be spoken of?' While you it seems are directly opposing your self-professed creator. You're pretty gutsy!)

Sheesh.

Angrillori

So, if evolution+atheism=immoral behavior,

and creationism+theism=moral behavior,

why are there more theists than atheists in prison?

Do you think the 'get out of hell free card?' or the 'Eh, this life'll be over soon' card had anything to do with it?

Who has more reason to live a socially beneficial life, the atheist who knows this is the only shot he or she gets, or the theist who can pretty much be 'justified by faith alone?'

I mean seriously. If a person knows that all they have to is this life and this shell, why would they do anything to endanger it?

Sure, there are people I don't like, and I won't go to hell if I kill them. But would I want to waste the vast majority of the only existance I will ever know running from the law or in prison?

Nope. I sure wouldn't. So I'm going to do my best to ensure the maximum enjoyment in this life, and as a social being in a society, that neccessarily means working for the betterment of the whole group and living within its sociological boundries.

So, don't you DARE claim that atheism=immorality, or that evolution=immorality, since both demand FAR more morality than your silly god of fear and punishment and 'get out of sin free' cards ever will.
Or is your whole agument from a lack of self esteem. Is the fact that some of us don't need crutches or threats to make us moral threatening to you? Does it make you feel like less of a person? Or like a coward? Kinda makes you jealous doesn't it?
At heart, I think that last bit is why theists find atheists so repugnant. It is a sterling mirror to show their own faults.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Darkblade,
You say,
How will pulling the wings off a fly get him punished? He’s not a little boy you know; but he may have hung onto childish ways. Do you dare to mean that it is merely Fiach’s fear of punishment that he is the gentleman that he is? He’d really rip my arms off if he could get away with it!? With friends like you, Fiach needs enemies like me to rush to his defense.

You say,
If we must obey our genetically programmed brains, then you abuse language to say that we obey those brains. For where disobedience is not possible, neither is obedience.

You say,
I see. Now you equate Fiach’s inability to be evil with his inability to do arbitrary things, i.e., be insane. Yet in the same breath you assert that Fiach does not WANT to be insane. You’ve got your crust! I’ll leave this hodgepodge of inconsistency for you to sort out. Next time, try to be coherent. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic