Abiogenesis, evolution and morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So tell me what makes you decide how to treat others, if you are not accountable to a higher being then logically the way you treat others is a matter of personal preference is it not?

How I treat others is a combination of who I am (genetics, upbringing, personal philosophy) and some selfish interest societally (laws, social benefits) and love (how I treat those I care about).

Of course invoking a higher being doesn't really change that much - it only make the selfish aspect much more important. You can pretend to love someone because you are scared of being accountable to a higher being if you don't but that won't really be love.

And logically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?
Love isn't logical. It is chemical.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes but that is the main process that drives evolution.

No, it isn't. You seem confused about what 'right' means.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what makes you think you can read Miss Evolutions mind? I say that you are wrong, and the fact that you decided to sidestep by making such an unfounded claim about what evolution would agree to, suggests you know you are wrong.

What did I sidestep? What unfounded claim did I make? Are you denying that evolution is based upon the principle of survival of the fittest?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it isn't. You seem confused about what 'right' means.

Please educate yourself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

If I am the product of evolution then I have the 'right' to all evolutionary mechanisms. Hypothetically.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So tell me what makes you decide how to treat others, if you are not accountable to a higher being then logically the way you treat others is a matter of personal preference is it not? And logically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?

"And logically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?"

Sir, you have a peculiar perception of what is logical. If you found out tomorrow with certainty that God did not exist, would you suddenly stop loving your family?!

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So tell me what makes you decide how to treat others, if you are not accountable to a higher being then logically the way you treat others is a matter of personal preference is it not? And logically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?

You love people only because you think your deity thinks you must do so?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How I treat others is a combination of who I am (genetics, upbringing, personal philosophy) and some selfish interest societally (laws, social benefits) and love (how I treat those I care about).

Of course invoking a higher being doesn't really change that much - it only make the selfish aspect much more important. You can pretend to love someone becau ...[text shortened]... gically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?
[/b]

Love isn't logical. It is chemical.
-----------------------------------------------

Would it not then be right for me to modify your sentence above like this?

How I treat others is a combination of
------------------------------------------------ [chemicals rather than "who I am",
chemicals rather than upbringing,
chemicals rather than personal philosophy,
chemicals rather than "selfish interests" ]

Your reductionist materialism then explains your emotional being to be eventually no more than chemicals.

I don't believe that. I may indeed sweat when being threatened by danger.
I don't reduce my fear to being only the chemicals of human sweat.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What did I sidestep?

The post you responded to.

What unfounded claim did I make?
That you could read miss Evolutions mind.

Are you denying that evolution is based upon the principle of survival of the fittest?
Yes. But that's besides the point.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"And logically why should you love someone if they are are merely the product of a chemical soup?"

Sir, you have a peculiar perception of what is logical. If you found out tomorrow with certainty that God did not exist, would you suddenly stop loving your family?!

Firstly I have never mentioned God. Secondly how is it even possible to find that out with certainty that a deity doesn't exit? Loving your family may be natural yes, how about loving your enemies?

Originally posted by sonship
Would it not then be right for me to modify your sentence above like this?

No, it would not.

Your reductionist materialism then explains your emotional being to be eventually no more than chemicals.
Actually it only demonstrates your propensity for strawmen.

I don't believe that. I may indeed sweat when being threatened by danger.
I don't reduce my fear to being only the chemicals of human sweat.
Who does? Sweat is a response not a cause. Learn some science before you go around disbelieving stuff.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Firstly I have never mentioned God. Secondly how is it even possible to find that out with certainty that a deity doesn't exit? Loving your family may be natural yes, how about loving your enemies?

Here is the deal with knowing a deity doesn't exist. Of Course we can't know a deity DOESN"T exist. The question is whether, assuming there is one, or at least one, there is zero evidence it gives a rats ass about humans. If you look at the millions killed in wars and religious pogroms of the last few hundred years from Tamerlane to the Islam wars of a thousand years ago, convert or die, which is still going on today, it seems pretty clear if there is a deity, it does nothing to stop these atrocities and the religious set just keeps coming back with apologists and excuses why that would happen with such crap as 'we have been given free will' which doesn't let off a god from stopping atrocity,

For instance the BULLCRAP story of Jews getting out of Egypt, thousands of first born children die? Come on, how can any one with more than half a mind believe a gracious loving god would ever do that, kill an innocent 10 day old baby to make a point to a frigging pharaoh?

Rather than, Oh, say, said god lifting said pharaoh up about 10 feet in the air and going, you want maybe to let my people go?

Just goes to show how man made these religions are. ALL religions. People have an infinite amount of gullibility, get converted and there goes your critical thinking down the tubes of religion.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Firstly I have never mentioned God. Secondly how is it even possible to find that out with certainty that a deity doesn't exit? Loving your family may be natural yes, how about loving your enemies?

If you're an atheist i'll eat my hat. God has fueled every question you've asked here.

And I said 'if' you found out with certainty that God did not exist, merely to demonstrate the point that love for your family is not based on the existence of a deity. (Or at least, I hope it's not).

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it would not.

[b]Your reductionist materialism then explains your emotional being to be eventually no more than chemicals.
Actually it only demonstrates your propensity for strawmen.

I don't believe that. I may indeed sweat when being threatened by danger.
I don't reduce my fear to being only the chemicals of human sweat.
Who does? Sweat is a response not a cause. Learn some science before you go around disbelieving stuff.[/b]

A chemical strawman no doubt.

Fear is chemical - Love is chemical.
I made an equivalent statement.

I am not going to guess what you mean.
And I am not going to wait around for you to call every response to what you appear to mean a strawman.

Love is chemical.
Okay, hate is chemical. Fear is chemical. Education is chemical.

So you want to revise it to love is not ultimately reducible to chemicals?
Or you by saying "Love is chemical" you are not saying ... "Love is chemical" I suppose.

Or there is much more to say, which I have to guess about.
Or there is much more to say, but I better go off and learn some science.
Convenient.

so " Love is chemical".
But this does not mean love can be ultimately reduced to chemical reactions.
That would be a strawman.

I am not sure you yourself know what you mean.

Originally posted by sonship
A chemical strawman no doubt.

No, just a typical sonship strawman.

Fear is chemical - Love is chemical.
I made an equivalent statement.
No, you made a whole lot of other statements (that one came later, and it is not equivalent.

I am not going to guess what you mean.
You did, and then jumped to conclusions.

And I am not going to wait around for you to call every response to what you appear to mean a strawman.
Yes you are.

Love is chemical.
Okay, hate is chemical. Fear is chemical. Education is chemical.
No, that is not what I mean, and it doesn't follow.

So you want to revise it to love is not ultimately reducible to chemicals?
I think it mostly is, but it is of course complicated. But love and education are two completely different things.

Or there is much more to say, which I have to guess about.
No, you don't have to guess about it. You could ask about it, or leave it alone. Guessing only leads to the wrong conclusions.

I am not sure you yourself know what you mean.
What I mean is that when I say love it chemical I am not saying education is chemical. They are not the same thing. To pretend that I said the latter is a strawman.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If you're an atheist i'll eat my hat. God has fueled every question you've asked here.

And I said 'if' you found out with certainty that God did not exist, merely to demonstrate the point that love for your family is not based on the existence of a deity. (Or at least, I hope it's not).

If you're an atheist i'll eat my hat.
---------------------------------------------------

I don't know what the poster is. S/He merely SAID s/he did not mention God.


God has fueled every question you've asked here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

He just said he didn't mention God.


And I said 'if' you found out with certainty that God did not exist, merely to demonstrate the point that love for your family is not based on the existence of a deity. (Or at least, I hope it's not).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You didn't ask me.
But, I would say -

1.) An atheist certainly to love his family.

2.) I think being made in the image of God involves all human beings with a value and dignity that another explanation for man's existence does not give.

Denying God, I think, is SELF devaluing.

What dignity did a slime or primordial muddy goo bestow upon you ?