<p>Are you f#$@#@ kidding me? Has religion ever cured any disease or made life easier for anyone ever? Religion is useless.</p>
<p>^ Um, yes…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ides.org/[/url]”>http://www.ides.org/</a></p>
<p>[Sponsor</a> a Child - Compassion](<a href=“http://www.compassion.com/]Sponsor”>http://www.compassion.com/)</p>
<p>[Lifewater</a> International - WASH: Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Education](<a href=“http://www.lifewater.org/]Lifewater”>http://www.lifewater.org/)</p>
<p>[Mercy</a> Ships](<a href=“http://www.mercyships.org/]Mercy”>http://www.mercyships.org/)</p>
<p>[Sponsor</a> a Child < Home | World Vision - Child Sponsorship](<a href=“http://www.worldvision.org/]Sponsor”>http://www.worldvision.org/)</p>
<p>To name a few more modern examples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not trying to prove that it CAN’T take place. I’m trying to prove that so far we have very little reason to believe that it DID take place, and thus we should not claim that it is proven science and that anyone who disagrees with it is either ignorant or bigoted.</p>
<p>You say there are “countless examples”. Can we see some of these? So far every example I have been shown has on closer examination been a case of either existing genes becoming common due to natural selection (for example, the peppered moths or the breeding of dogs), or the *loss<a href=“not%20gain”>/I</a> of genes due to a mutation (for example, wingless flies, or some antibiotic-resistant bacteria).</p>
<p>I think this discussion has convinced me never to eat in Annenberg if mifune is there and sufficiently enraged.</p>
<p>This is the most redundant argument I have ever seen, and it is of dreadfully poor quality. 
Guys, go hang out with friends or get some sleep. Arguing on the internet - in this especially sad fashion - isn’t worth it. -3 respect points for you both.</p>
<p>^Its only of poor quality b/c your position is getting destroyed. But yeah mifune writes like a beast.</p>
<p>^^Lol, that page of mifune’s arguments caused my computer to log me out of here.</p>
<p>Something that I’ve been wondering about…you observe that there are countless instances in which chance plays a determining role. (Evolution being, of course, the most hotly debated one; quantum uncertainty being the most common by number of instances.) Isn’t it possible that these instances can be influenced by what might be called God? This would allow for free will on the part of both people and God, and would explain the existence of the uncertainty principle in that there is a part of the universe that follows physical laws, and another part that is left up to chance.</p>
<p>Of course science wins…for now lol</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for an answer on how one can establish objective moral/ethical obligation empirically.</p>
<p>In other words, does “should” exist in this context if one rejects all but empiricism?</p>
<p>@Baelor
So basically “should” does not exist, but “must” in order to stay alive does, because you’ve evolved in such a way that 1) your brain naturally works in what we call a “moral framework” and 2) you derive some benefit from acting the way you “should.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or because people have been driveling here to no end. Nothing will be resolved here - that is the ultimate folly of arguing on the interwebs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where was this posted? I had followed the thread for some time succeeding my final post; I left because I did not see my very lucid and potentially enlightening, not to inflate my own ego to an inappropriately high degree, answered in the subsequent posts. It would help me if I had more context here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, an atheist who holds his views (or, as an atheist would be more likely to say, correctly perceives the world) is necessarily a moral nihilist? That is to say, such a person would agree that there is no “should” or even “need” in the moral sense, given that continued “life” has no moral dimension?</p>
<p>No, the point mifune made was that we have a <em>biological</em> “need” to be moralistic. Not because of some perceived benefit we receive in the afterlife/next life (although as far as I’m concerned, we do get some of that) but because we have evolved in such a way that acting in a more or less moral manner increases our chances of survival, especially within a society that values the morals.</p>
<p>And that was my summary of the quoted paragraph…I am sure mifune could explain it to you better, as he wrote it in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are too many quotation marks in that sentence, in that there are any at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You need to explain why chances of survival are even worth pursuing at all. That’s not a given for someone who has agency or free will. This is not the place methinks for a conversation about determinism, because that would eliminate the purpose of this entire thread anyway.</p>
<p>My question is why I should on a moral level attempt self-preservation at all. Given that I am not bound by biological impulses in my decision-making, or at least entirely so, my question is why I should consider myself to be bound to biological “necessities” on a moral level.</p>
<p>Do you see what I am asking? That question has yet to be answered. All that I have received is an answer that explains biological necessities, not why I am compelled morally or ethically to follow them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Your ancestors did not give rise to you by not preserving themselves.
2) You’re saying you should commit suicide…because you have free will? If you have free will, then why are you NOT preserving yourself?</p>
<p>You are compelled morally/ethically to follow some ethics because you evolved that way. Granted, you do have a modicum of free will. But you are strongly predisposed to self-preservation, biologically. Ever heard of the Shakers? They refused to have kids…so they died out. “Exercising free will” just for the purposes of contradicting something you do not believe in is not productive.</p>
<p>You can follow just about any morals you wish to follow. Once you decide to be bound by them, you are compelled.</p>
<p>Mind answering my question now?</p>
<p>I think what Baelor is trying to say is that if there is no higher purpose to life, then life is just a freak chemical reaction that has no purpose and the only reason to try to stay is to stay alive. He’s saying that morals can help preserve life, but there’s no scientific reason why life needs to exist.</p>
<p>Is that what you were trying to get at?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Utterly irrelevant. The point is that they chose to do what they did. Now you need to show that there is a moral element to their decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I’m not an atheist and embrace morality. But I’m looking for an atheist who relies solely on empiricism yet can somehow empirically demonstrate morality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I have the capability NOT to follow those “ethics,” which are dubious anyway (hence empiricists’ disagreements on some issues). My question is WHY I should feel compelled to follow those biological initiatives. Simply stating that they exist is not enough reason to follow them.</p>
<p>Remember, I for the purpose of this discussion make only one assumption: we exist and this world is real. Now take me from that very basic assumption to a particular moral choice with absolutely no other assumptions and you’ll have me convinced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did. But that question doesn’t help your point at all, because I removed myself from this conversation by stating I was religious, which I am.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess. Basically, there is no empirical reason to do anything because we haven’t established that life = good or that self-preservation = moral goal.</p>
<p>In other words, at what point was it proven that we should even follow our evolution? No point. Why should we even preserve life, for example? hahalolk explained my thoughts well on that count.</p>
<p>Mass suicides FTW!</p>
<p>I won’t be on here for a while. I’ll hopefully be back to respond to the lastest line of posts next week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have been advancing the viewpoint that a naturalistic worldview is neccesary for rational scientific thinking. I pointed out that the majority of history’s great rational thinkers did not have such a worldview.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This being a perfect example of my statement above.</p>