Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2012, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2012 05:09 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 04:05 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Tell me how this is moral and benevolent.

Well, first we gotta know WHY we're here. Why did God create this place and put us in it? Since that's a different question, and one we're not likely to answer this side of the grave, I'll skip it for now. If w're presupposing God, let's presuppose he has a plan for us.

So, He could have put us here as some kind of energy lifeform, operating on solar power, living forever in peace and bliss and never suffering. But then life would have no meaning without death. Bliss would have no meaning without suffering. It's the negative stuff that makes the good stuff seem so good. Think about it. If every woman on the planet looked exactly like Scarlet Johansen, well, then they'd all be ordinary. We wouldn't define beauty by how beautiful every woman is - that would be our standard for ordinary looks. Likewise, if we never ever suffered but knew only bliss, that would be ordinary. If we never died, then life would be just ordinary, boring, life.

So He gave us definition for life by creating death. Definition for happiness by creating sadness. Definition for bliss by creating suffering. And so on.

If He had not given us these negative things, we would not have understood the value of the rest of it. Thus, it was moral and necessary - doing what is necessary is benevolent, much like a doctor benevolently amputating a gangrenous limb - seems like a cruel thing, but it is necessary, right, and the benevolent thing to do. God's seeming cruelty is much more benevolent than sticking us here with no purpose and no meaning and no end.

So, He still could have created us as some kind of energy lifeform, operating on solar power, living for a short while they dying, suffering fairly often along the way. But then He would have needed two systems: one for our subsistence as energy beings and one for the death and suffering we would need to define our existence. Instead, clever God, He created one simple, neat package that incorporates our mortality, suffering, joy, bliss, life, meaning, and sustenance, everything we need, all in one package that includes a lifeform that subsists by consuming other lifeforms and eventually nourishes still more lifeforms when we die.

Neat. Necessary. Moral. Benevolent.

Again, this does not tell me how it is moral or benevolent.

(06-11-2012 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage

Evolution quite obviously IS a "moral" system. Cooperation promotes survival.

Ah, of course. It also teaches us to share and not to call each other names.

(06-11-2012 04:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute.

*citation needed*

Most denominations do not accept omnibenevolence as an attribute of God. Omnibenevolence isn't displayed or taught in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite is displayed and taught. God's benevolence is entirely subjective - He chooses when, to whom, and how much benevolence He wishes to bestow.

Moreover, the 3 attributes of God that are almost universally accepted by all denominations is omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Your argument is a false dilemma. You are applying a scarce belief among a minute amount of Christians.

If you are going to argue against one of God's attributes, it needs to be one of the three aforementioned; not omnibenevolence.

The several attributions of God (Aseity, Eternity, Graciousness, Holiness, Immanence, Immutability, Impassibility, Impeccability, Incorporeality, Love, Mission, Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Oneness, Providence, Righteousness, Simplicity, Transcendence, Trinity, Veracity, and Wrath) include omnibenevolence as part of his nature. If he is not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of limitation, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. In other words, why call him God?

I think you will find that you are part of a minority in believing that omnibenevolence is not apart of God's list of special abilities. The majority of Christians, including Protestant and Catholic, believe that God is infinitely good and just. The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. I have yet to see any moral ramifications for the constant death and suffering of entire species of organisms.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 05:18 PM
Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage

Evolution quite obviously IS a "moral" system. Cooperation promotes survival.
Nope, sorry. That's only true for social animals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 05:27 PM
RE: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 04:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Evolution quite obviously IS a "moral" system. Cooperation promotes survival.
Nope, sorry. That's only true for social animals.
I don't think he was talking about insects. In humans, Evolution produced "moral" systems to promote survival.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 05:32 PM
RE: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 05:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, sorry. That's only true for social animals.
I don't think he was talking about insects. In humans, Evolution produced "moral" systems to promote survival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
These moral systems have come to view this:








As pretty fucking cruel.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 06:36 PM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible
(06-11-2012 04:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute.

*citation needed*

Most denominations do not accept omnibenevolence as an attribute of God. Omnibenevolence isn't displayed or taught in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite is displayed and taught. God's benevolence is entirely subjective - He chooses when, to whom, and how much benevolence He wishes to bestow.

Moreover, the 3 attributes of God that are almost universally accepted by all denominations is omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Your argument is a false dilemma. You are applying a scarce belief among a minute amount of Christians.

If you are going to argue against one of God's attributes, it needs to be one of the three aforementioned; not omnibenevolence.


And here we see where the scientific method came (evolved?) from.

Our primitive pithecoidal ancestors thought of the gods hypothesis, assessed some observable facts and went for the gods theory.

Later, with more evidence, godly analysts said "No, hang on, the gods can't be omnibenevolent... etc."

Theory gets updated.

Most god-scientists accept the new theory and the rest are branded as nutters (heretics) who are hounded out of the god-community.

A few millennia later some fool challenges the original hypothesis. Naturally they are ridiculed until evidence starts to mount...

The rest will be history.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
06-11-2012, 06:55 PM
RE: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 05:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, sorry. That's only true for social animals.
I don't think he was talking about insects. In humans, Evolution produced "moral" systems to promote survival.



Yes, but evolution is not a moral system, it is mechanical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-11-2012, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2012 12:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
"cruel" is anthropomorphism.
If you dump the premise that "individuals" are important, (which they aren't), then the whole thing works perfectly.
It's "survival of the GROUP", not the individual. We are here. It worked great.
Your thread, however IS correct, they are incompatible. Maybe for other reasons.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-11-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity
Christianity is incompatible with evolution in the sense that I got a brain that evolved from somewhere which processes the signal "Christianity" as "total fucking nonsense," but this moral argument is fucking ludicrous.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 07:26 AM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
I'm with houseofcantor on this one.

The process of life being an issue of morals is quite far-fetched.
In the first place, what are we using to measure the heat of the morals? Why would anything in the process be considered moral or immoral?
If everything that happened during evolution had to happen in order to get where we are, how can we call that immoral? We can't even call that moral! All we can do is say it was necessary to produce the result - Highly complex, intelligent, self-sustaining, organic computers (us).

I'm wondering if any of you would agree - This doesn't become an issue of morals until you add God to the equation. If there were an intelligent being behind the entire process, then you can start to blame someone for something concerning an issue of morality.

Also, doesn't it make more sense what Bucky Ball said? ""cruel" is anthropomorphism"
Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of individuals to determine.
Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues.

n stuff..

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
07-11-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity is incompatible with evolution.
(07-11-2012 07:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm with houseofcantor on this one.

The process of life being an issue of morals is quite far-fetched.
In the first place, what are we using to measure the heat of the morals? Why would anything in the process be considered moral or immoral?
If everything that happened during evolution had to happen in order to get where we are, how can we call that immoral? We can't even call that moral! All we can do is say it was necessary to produce the result - Highly complex, intelligent, self-sustaining, organic computers (us).

I'm wondering if any of you would agree - This doesn't become an issue of morals until you add God to the equation. If there were an intelligent being behind the entire process, then you can start to blame someone for something concerning an issue of morality.

Also, doesn't it make more sense what Bucky Ball said? ""cruel" is anthropomorphism"
Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of individuals to determine.
Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues.

n stuff..
Well said.

Small correction:
"Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues ethics."

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: