An Open Letter to Atheists

[Myles O'Reilly]

I think you're starting from a false premise Bocht. You're talking from one of only many stories aka religions that man has scribbled down in his infancy, some that caught on, others that didn't.

Organised religion should be parked from the start.

The question is is there a God aka a Creator, a being that created the Universe and all that's in it. And does this entity interfere in human affairs or not.

That's the question Sir.

 

[Tiger]

By the way, has @Tiger finally fulfilled his flounce, or is he dead (I can assure you that if it's the latter I had nothing to do with it)

Only you could think not posting for a day or two constitutes flouncing.

I spent the weekend at several national football cup final competitions with my club in the glorious sunshine and the evenings down in the pub celebrating our victories.

I appreciate that in my brief absence, the thread has clearly missed the guiding hand of coherence.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I think you're starting from a false premise Bocht. You're talking from one of only many stories aka religions that man has scribbled down in his infancy, some that caught on, others that didn't.

If you honestly believe that humans have been around for millions of years than the oldest stuff in the Bible no mind the New Testament was written down very far from the infancy of humanity.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I don't mean to cut across the debate here but it seems that Tiger has fallen into the cul de sac that many people do debating with atheists. What happens is that frequently the latter interpret their atheism as a kid of black hole of nothingness, and believing in, sometimes literally, nothing, so its impossible to have a debate, because the other side has actually no position. Sometimes they will invite you to give your interpretation of their position and then spend hours saying "I don't believe that"..."how dare you presume to know what I believe" etc etc. So I wonder would the atheists on here like to give a proper summary of what they actually believe, so that you could have a proper debate?

Take a specific issue as an example which then might make this point clearer. For thousands of years people accepted the story in the Bible, particularly about Our Lord, as a genuine true account of what happened, so hence its a pretty strong bulwark of the theist position. So presumably atheists argue back against that, they obviously have to because if you accept the Bible as true then they are sunk? So can I invite atheists on here to say what is there position on that, for example, presumably you take one or other of these positions:

a) That the Bible account is a later forgery, not written in Biblical times at all.
b) That the Four Evangelists were writing fiction which they themselves never believed to be true.
c) That these Four were misled, they thought what they said was true but it isn't.

Or some variation of all that? Because its only when you try to get straight in your mind what you think really happened, straight enough that you are prepared to say so, that maybe you can see clearly the problems in your position?

Anyway just a thought.

If someone is not going to accept the five proofs of God that St Thomas Aquinas put forward as the most important ones I really cannot see them accepting any arguments coming from accounts in the Bible which would rely on trust and even Faith to some degree at least while as the former don't. I am not sure that it is right to argue with atheists about Religion as such.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

If you honestly believe that humans have been around for millions of years than the oldest stuff in the Bible no mind the New Testament was written down very far from the infancy of humanity.

Not millions of years Miss. Lets put it at 100k. Why wait until 98k has passed before intervention in the form of a Messiah?

 

[Tiger]

I don't mean to cut across the debate here but it seems that Tiger has fallen into the cul de sac that many people do debating with atheists. What happens is that frequently the latter interpret their atheism as a kid of black hole of nothingness, and believing in, sometimes literally, nothing, so its impossible to have a debate, because the other side has actually no position. Sometimes they will invite you to give your interpretation of their position and then spend hours saying "I don't believe that"..."how dare you presume to know what I believe" etc etc. So I wonder would the atheists on here like to give a proper summary of what they actually believe, so that you could have a proper debate?

Take a specific issue as an example which then might make this point clearer. For thousands of years people accepted the story in the Bible, particularly about Our Lord, as a genuine true account of what happened, so hence its a pretty strong bulwark of the theist position. So presumably atheists argue back against that, they obviously have to because if you accept the Bible as true then they are sunk? So can I invite atheists on here to say what is there position on that, for example, presumably you take one or other of these positions:

a) That the Bible account is a later forgery, not written in Biblical times at all.
b) That the Four Evangelists were writing fiction which they themselves never believed to be true.
c) That these Four were misled, they thought what they said was true but it isn't.

Or some variation of all that? Because its only when you try to get straight in your mind what you think really happened, straight enough that you are prepared to say so, that maybe you can see clearly the problems in your position?

Anyway just a thought.

What you've laid out is not only astute—it touches on the very asymmetry that has paralysed so many modern debates: the theist enters with centuries of thought, literature, tradition, and metaphysical grounding. The atheist often enters with little more than a sneer and the intellectual equivalent of a shrug.

Your diagnosis is correct: when confronted, many atheists collapse into the posture of the elusive chameleon. They present no thesis, only anti-thesis. They are anti-God, anti-Church, anti-Bible—but are curiously allergic to defining what they are for. Their refusal to clearly articulate a worldview is not clever—it’s evasive. And if they do present one, it often consists of hand-me-down materialism dressed up in secondhand Dawkins-speak.

These are not thinkers, but reflexive deconstructors—products of a system that replaced revelation with ideology and called it "progress." Their catechism is one of negation. Their sacred doctrine is unbelief. And when pressed to actually define the roots of their own metaphysics—cosmology, morality, epistemology—they scoff, stall, or mock.

John Lennox, in his Oxfordian clarity, often reminds us that “atheism is a faith position too—one that asserts a great deal, including the belief that the universe and life sprang from impersonal processes without mind, purpose, or value.” But the atheist rarely follows this through to its implications. If all is matter in motion, then so is the thought that all is matter in motion—a self-defeating proposition.

Your invitation is fair and reasonable: if one denies the biblical account, then by all means—present an alternative. Was it fraud? Was it delusion? Was it myth? Each of those options comes with its own evidential burden. The apostles, tortured and killed for their testimony, don't fit the mold of cynical propagandists. Their accounts, while distinct, converge with a consistency that would embarrass most modern journalism. And the textual fidelity of the New Testament, supported by thousands of manuscripts, eclipses any comparable ancient work.

 

[AN2]

lol From what I've seen of John Lennox, he's a silly sophist who shouldn't be given the time of day. No wonder you like him

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Tiger please. Don't avoid questions you find challenging.

The Pachamama incident if you will?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

What you've laid out is not only astute—it touches on the very asymmetry that has paralysed so many modern debates: the theist enters with centuries of thought, literature, tradition, and metaphysical grounding. The atheist often enters with little more than a sneer and the intellectual equivalent of a shrug.

Equally one could say the theist (well I'd prefer to say the religious person) had Centuries of not knowing much if anything about Science, the Cosmos, medicine, the germ theory etc that made him attribute everything to unexplainable supernatural causes.

And the modern non-religious person comes to the table armed with all this "new" information.

 

[Tiger]

Tiger please. Don't avoid questions you find challenging.

The Pachamama incident if you will?

You didn’t ask a question about it. You made a statement of what you thought about it.

 

[Tiger]

Equally one could say the theist (well I'd prefer to say the religious person) had Centuries of not knowing much if anything about Science, the Cosmos, medicine, the germ theory etc that made him attribute everything to unexplainable supernatural causes.

And the modern non-religious person comes to the table armed with all this "new" information.

That’s a fashionable claim — that belief in God was simply a placeholder for ignorance, now supposedly replaced by the glowing certainties of modern science. But it’s a historical distortion. Science was not birthed in opposition to theism, but in the cradle of Christian civilization. Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel — these were devout men whose faith inspired their inquiry. They believed that a rational God had written an intelligible universe, which is why they searched for order rather than chaos.

Yes, today we know more about cells and stars than in the 13th century — but the increase of data hasn’t removed the deeper questions; it’s only exposed them more plainly. You're quick to speak up if you think someone hasn't answered your questions and yet you and your ilk never even attempt to answer the difficult questions I raise. You simply ignore and deflect.

So here are a few:

• What is the origin of consciousness? Not brain chemistry — consciousness itself. Why is there a first-person experience at all?
• Why does the universe obey mathematical laws? Why not chaos? Why mathematics, and why is it so uncannily effective?
• How did non-living matter cross the boundary into life? Abiogenesis remains a black box.
• What is information, and how do blind physical processes create it, preserve it, or assign meaning to it?
• Why is there something rather than nothing?

None of these are answered by evolution theory, quantum mechanics, or cosmology. In fact, the deeper science probes, the more profound these mysteries become.

You claim modern non-religious people come “armed” with new knowledge — but knowledge of what, and for what? The periodic table doesn't explain personhood. The laws of physics can describe how a stone falls but say nothing of why you love your child, or why you recoil at injustice. Science describes mechanism, not meaning.

So yes — it’s one thing to wield new information. It’s another to pretend it answers the oldest questions.

 

[AN2]

If someone is not going to accept the five proofs of God that St Thomas Aquinas put forward as the most important ones I really cannot see them accepting any arguments coming from accounts in the Bible which would rely on trust and even Faith to some degree at least while as the former don't. I am not sure that it is right to argue with atheists about Religion as such.

Although I recall having to sort of drag it out of him, @scolairebocht admitted that his "proof" of God was a "proof" for the Christian one (so this thread should really have been entitled - An Open Letter to non-Christians), big-brained Tiger has obviously decided to go the scienty route. You're all a wee bit different

What do you think of Intelligent Design (pseudoscience), do you know much about it?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Although I recall having to sort of drag it out of him, @scolairebocht admitted that his "proof" of God was a "proof" for the Christian one (so this thread should really have been entitled - An Open Letter to non-Christians), big-brained Tiger has obviously decided to go the scienty route. You're all a wee bit different

What do you think of Intelligent Design (pseudoscience), do you know much about it?

The five proofs seen as central by St Thomas Aquinas do not prove Christianity as such at all.

Just the existence of God.

My understanding is that "Intelligent Design" is basically a repackaging of the old Cosmological Argument but no I do not know much about it. Apologetics so to speak against atheism have never really interested me.

 

[AN2]

The five proofs seen as central by St Thomas Aquinas do not prove Christianity as such at all.

Just the existence of God.

Okay, so you think that a Hindu would accept those "proofs" for the existence of God?

My understanding is that "Intelligent Design" is basically a repackaging of the old Cosmological Argument but no I do not know much about it.

Intelligent Design is obviously laughable junk (and almost exclusively Christian) but it's also quite sinister. The folks at the DI (Discovery Institute) literally want to replace science with their God. Nope, not on my watch you won't

Apologetics so to speak against atheism have never really interested me.

Good for you

 

[AN2]

That’s a fashionable claim — that belief in God was simply a placeholder for ignorance, now supposedly replaced by the glowing certainties of modern science. But it’s a historical distortion. Science was not birthed in opposition to theism, but in the cradle of Christian civilization. Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel — these were devout men whose faith inspired their inquiry. They believed that a rational God had written an intelligible universe, which is why they searched for order rather than chaos.

Yes, today we know more about cells and stars than in the 13th century — but the increase of data hasn’t removed the deeper questions; it’s only exposed them more plainly. You're quick to speak up if you think someone hasn't answered your questions and yet you and your ilk never even attempt to answer the difficult questions I raise. You simply ignore and deflect.

So here are a few:

• What is the origin of consciousness? Not brain chemistry

Why not?

• Why does the universe obey mathematical laws? Why not chaos? Why mathematics, and why is it so uncannily effective?

What's "chaotic" about it?

If mathematics described a different set of laws, would that be "chaotic"?

• How did non-living matter cross the boundary into life? Abiogenesis remains a black box.

So why do you babble about evolution, an accepted scientific theory that doesn't address abiogenesis?

• What is information, and how do blind physical processes create it, preserve it, or assign meaning to it?

Please watch my video in @Fishalt's thread about the DI fraud Stephen Meyer

• Why is there something rather than nothing?

No one knows. That includes you (duh)

None of these are answered by evolution theory, quantum mechanics, or cosmology. In fact, the deeper science probes, the more profound these mysteries become.

You claim modern non-religious people come “armed” with new knowledge — but knowledge of what, and for what? The periodic table doesn't explain personhood. The laws of physics can describe how a stone falls but say nothing of why you love your child, or why you recoil at injustice. Science describes mechanism, not meaning.

So yes — it’s one thing to wield new information. It’s another to pretend it answers the oldest questions.

 

[Tiger]

Intelligent Design is obviously laughable junk (and almost exclusively Christian) but it's also quite sinister. The folks at the DI (Discovery Institute) literally want to replace science with their God. Nope, not on my watch you won't

You’ve packed a lot of dismissive rhetoric into a few lines, but not much substance. Labelling Intelligent Design as “junk” without engaging its actual claims is not an argument — it’s a reflex. At its core, Intelligent Design isn’t a denomination or a doctrine — it’s a label for the commonsense inference that the intricate, ordered complexity we observe in nature is not the result of random, undirected processes, but of purposeful arrangement. That doesn’t require one to be Christian — it only requires one to observe, as William Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker.

The idea that "God replaces science" is a category error. God does not replace science any more than an author replaces grammar. One accounts for purpose and origin, the other for process and mechanism. Saying that belief in an intelligent cause undermines science is like saying Newton’s belief in the Designer of gravity negated his Principia Mathematica — absurd on its face.

What’s truly sinister is not the Discovery Institute, but the growing effort to enforce metaphysical naturalism as the only allowable worldview in public discourse. That’s not science — it’s ideology.

And if you’re so confident that the universe is undesigned, then try answering these:

• Why does DNA contain vast amounts of digitally encoded, hierarchically organized information — the hallmark of language and engineering?
• How did the first self-replicating, information-bearing molecule arise from non-living matter without guidance?
• Why does nature consistently exhibit mathematical order — equations that govern not just patterns, but the very behavior of energy and matter?
• How do you explain fine-tuning in the physical constants of the universe without invoking wild, untestable multiverse speculations?

These aren't gaps in knowledge — they’re cracks in the materialist foundation. What Intelligent Design threatens is not science, but scientism — the belief that science alone can answer all meaningful questions. And that belief, ironically, isn’t scientific at all.

 

[AN2]

You’ve packed a lot of dismissive rhetoric into a few lines, but not much substance. Labelling Intelligent Design as “junk” without engaging its actual claims is not an argument — it’s a reflex. At its core, Intelligent Design isn’t a denomination or a doctrine — it’s a label for the commonsense inference that the intricate, ordered complexity we observe in nature is not the result of random, undirected processes, but of purposeful arrangement. That doesn’t require one to be Christian — it only requires one to observe, as William Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker.

The idea that "God replaces science" is a category error. God does not replace science any more than an author replaces grammar. One accounts for purpose and origin, the other for process and mechanism. Saying that belief in an intelligent cause undermines science is like saying Newton’s belief in the Designer of gravity negated his Principia Mathematica — absurd on its face.

What’s truly sinister is not the Discovery Institute, but the growing effort to enforce metaphysical naturalism as the only allowable worldview in public discourse. That’s not science — it’s ideology.

And if you’re so confident that the universe is undesigned, then try answering these:

• Why does DNA contain vast amounts of digitally encoded, hierarchically organized information — the hallmark of language and engineering?
• How did the first self-replicating, information-bearing molecule arise from non-living matter without guidance?
• Why does nature consistently exhibit mathematical order — equations that govern not just patterns, but the very behavior of energy and matter?
• How do you explain fine-tuning in the physical constants of the universe without invoking wild, untestable multiverse speculations?

These aren't gaps in knowledge — they’re cracks in the materialist foundation. What Intelligent Design threatens is not science, but scientism — the belief that science alone can answer all meaningful questions. And that belief, ironically, isn’t scientific at all.

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-133681

 

[Tiger]

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-133681

James, you do realise that you are ‘Exhibit A’ in how poorly read your average evolution loving atheist is in all matters of science and the big questions?

All you contributions are childish sneers and vacuous, lazy one line retorts with no substance or information. Which is exactly what you will respond to this post with, even though I’ve pointed this out in advance.

 

[AN2]

James, you do realise that you are ‘Exhibit A’ in how poorly read your average evolution loving atheist is in all matters of science and the big questions?

I'm an "evolution lover"? Grow up, kid

All you contributions are childish sneers and vacuous, lazy one line retorts with no substance or information. Which is exactly what you will respond to this post with, even though I’ve pointed this out in advance.

I actually addessed some of your (endlessly repetitive) questions in post #335, but you'll just keep on repeating them. You are a soapbox dunce

 

[Tiger]

In answer to the question about consciousness you wrote:

Why not?

Because asking why brain chemistry can’t be the origin of consciousness is like asking why a piano can’t be the origin of the symphony. Brain chemistry might be the medium through which consciousness operates, but it does not account for the origin, nature, or self-awareness of the conscious experience itself.

Electrochemical reactions can explain patterns of activity — they cannot explain subjective experience, intentionality, or qualia (like the "redness" of red or the taste of salt). These aren’t just functions — they are phenomena.

If consciousness is just brain chemistry, then truth, beauty, love, and reason are nothing more than chemical illusions. But if you believe your thoughts are more than biochemical noise — if they carry actual meaning — then you’ve already assumed a reality beyond chemistry.

So let me return the question:

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

 

[AN2]

In answer to the question about consciousness you wrote:


Because asking why brain chemistry can’t be the origin of consciousness is like asking why a piano can’t be the origin of the symphony.

Are these tiresome analogies of yours strictly necessary? Can you not write a post without filling it with empty space?

Brain chemistry might be the medium through which consciousness operates, but it does not account for the origin, nature, or self-awareness of the conscious experience itself.

Electrochemical reactions can explain patterns of activity — they cannot explain subjective experience, intentionality, or qualia (like the "redness" of red or the taste of salt). These aren’t just functions — they are phenomena.

If consciousness is just brain chemistry, then truth, beauty, love, and reason are nothing more than chemical illusions. But if you believe your thoughts are more than biochemical noise — if they carry actual meaning — then you’ve already assumed a reality beyond chemistry.

So let me return the question:

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

 

[Tiger]

Are these tiresome analogies of yours strictly necessary? Can you not write a post without filling it with empty space?

Ladies and gentleman I present you with ‘Exhibit A’

 

[AN2]

In answer to the question about consciousness you wrote:


Because asking why brain chemistry can’t be the origin of consciousness is like asking why a piano can’t be the origin of the symphony. Brain chemistry might be the medium through which consciousness operates, but it does not account for the origin, nature, or self-awareness of the conscious experience itself.

Electrochemical reactions can explain patterns of activity — they cannot explain subjective experience, intentionality, or qualia (like the "redness" of red or the taste of salt). These aren’t just functions — they are phenomena.

If consciousness is just brain chemistry, then truth, beauty, love, and reason are nothing more than chemical illusions. But if you believe your thoughts are more than biochemical noise — if they carry actual meaning — then you’ve already assumed a reality beyond chemistry.

So let me return the question:

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

It's quite fascinating that that happened. And I've thought about this stuff more than you, I would wager, not least because I don't have any bias

 

[Tiger]

It's quite fascinating that that happened. And I've thought about this stuff more than you, I would wager, not least because I don't have any bias

And what conclusion did you come to?

 

[AN2]

And what conclusion did you come to?

Conclusion for what exactly?

The existence of an intelligent animal, a species of which I'm a member? Why there's something instead of nothing? If you can be more specific l'll answer..

 

[Tiger]

Conclusion for what exactly?

The existence of an intelligent animal, a species of which I'm a member? Why there's something instead of nothing? If you can be more specific l'll answer..

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

 

[AN2]

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

"Blind atoms" is a meaningless term

If you want to ask a proper question then feel free. Otherwise I can leave it at - We are an intelligent animal

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Why would you think a system of blind atoms accidentally gives rise to a self-aware mind that can ask about its own origin?

This is the thing- in my heart I cannot help feeling that atheists are being deliberately perverse in not acknowledging the existence of a God. Not acknowledging the basic Truths of Christianity is another matter. However they feel in their hearts, or at least a lot of them do, that our conviction in the existence of God is also us playing games with our heads. That is one reason why I think these discussions are better left off.

 

[Tiger]

"Blind atoms" is a meaningless term

If you want to ask a proper question then feel free. Otherwise I can leave it at - We are an intelligent animal

“‘Blind atoms’ is only ‘meaningless’ if you’ve never seriously grappled with the hard problem of consciousness — which is precisely what your answer avoids.

The term refers to the view that, under materialism, everything ultimately reduces to unconscious particles colliding without intention. That’s not poetry — that’s your stance that an ungoverned universe with no designer must accept. So the question stands: How does a collection of mindless particles, governed solely by deterministic or stochastic physical laws, generate a self-aware subject who can reflect on its own existence?

Philosophers like Thomas Nagel (an atheist, mind you) have called this “the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism.” Nobel laureate Roger Penrose has argued that consciousness cannot be reduced to classical computation or physics as we know it — something deeper is going on.

Your response — “We are an intelligent animal” — is just a category label, not an explanation. It’s like replying to ‘What is music?’ with ‘Sound.’ You’ve skipped the mystery entirely. Saying we are intelligent animals explains nothing, it’s simply a label. It tells us what we are not why or how such intelligence arises from matter with no intention, no foresight, and no goal.

If you believe consciousness naturally emerges from blind matter, then demonstrate how. Until then, that belief functions more as a myth than a scientific explanation — and a rather magical one at that.

 

[AN2]

This is the thing- in my heart I cannot help feeling that atheists are being deliberately perverse in not acknowledging the existence of a God. Not acknowledging the basic Truths of Christianity is another matter. However they feel in their hearts, or at least a lot of them do, that our conviction in the existence of God is also us playing games with our heads. That is one reason why I think these discussions are better left off.

Sex, religion and politics? Surely that's the perfect mixture for a discussion forum

I think you could almost sum it up as - Theists need a "meaning" for life, basically that they're going to go to heaven and live forever, and atheists, don't

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Sex, religion and politics? Surely that's the perfect mixture for a discussion forum

I think you could almost sum it up as - Theists need a "meaning" for life, basically that they're going to go to heaven and live forever, and atheists, don't

Religion, Sex and Politics are basically the most interesting things in this life (probably in that order). True.

However not every detail about them is automatically interesting and I was not thinking of discussions about Religion as such but rather the Theism Contra Atheism debates that just go around and around in circles without anyone seeming to gain much benefit from them.

 

[AN2]

“‘Blind atoms’ is only ‘meaningless’ if you’ve never seriously grappled with the hard problem of consciousness — which is precisely what your answer avoids.

Why? How?

In terms of morality let's say, what's that all about? It seems obvious to me that that it's about empathy. So, you're moved to tears when you see another human being (or other animal) suffer. How did that happen? Well, you could consider - You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. This then became hardwired as empathy (human morality)

Of course, God just forgot and left out the percentage of the population who are not empathetic but psychopathic

The term refers to the view that, under materialism, everything ultimately reduces to unconscious particles colliding without intention. That’s not poetry — that’s your stance that an ungoverned universe with no designer must accept. So the question stands: How does a collection of mindless particles, governed solely by deterministic or stochastic physical laws, generate a self-aware subject who can reflect on its own existence?

Philosophers like Thomas Nagel (an atheist, mind you) have called this “the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism.” Nobel laureate Roger Penrose has argued that consciousness cannot be reduced to classical computation or physics as we know it — something deeper is going on.

Your response — “We are an intelligent animal” — is just a category label, not an explanation. It’s like replying to ‘What is music?’ with ‘Sound.’ You’ve skipped the mystery entirely. Saying we are intelligent animals explains nothing, it’s simply a label. It tells us what we are not why or how such intelligence arises from matter with no intention, no foresight, and no goal.

If you believe consciousness naturally emerges from blind matter, then demonstrate how. Until then, that belief functions more as a myth than a scientific explanation — and a rather magical one at that.

 

[AN2]

Religion, Sex and Politics are basically the most interesting things in this life (probably in that order). True.

However not every detail about them is automatically interesting and I was not thinking of discussions about Religion as such but rather the Theism Contra Atheism debates that just go around and around in circles without anyone seeming to gain much benefit from them.

I have no problem with people having their faith, bully for them. I object to the hijacking of science and gnosticism (as previously mentioned). I'm not going to stop objecting to that

TIger obviously has a very low IQ and he commits both crimes.. And I'm not going to stop slapping him around for it

 

[Tiger]

Why? How?

In terms of morality let's say, what's that all about? It seems obvious to me that that it's about empathy. So, you're moved to tears when you see another human being (or other animal) suffer. How did that happen? Well, you could consider - You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. This then became hardwired as empathy (human morality)

Of course, God just forgot and left out the percentage of the population who are not empathetic but psychopathic

Your answer shows exactly how shallow your position is. You've given it no thought whatsoever.

You're asserting that morality — empathy in this case — emerged from reciprocal survival strategies ("you scratch my back...") and became "hardwired." That’s a popular evolutionary psychology narrative, but it’s not science — it’s speculative storytelling dressed up in Darwinian terminology. There is no empirical evidence showing how selfless empathy — especially at great personal cost — could have evolved from blind natural selection. If natural selection favors reproductive success, why do we lionize people who die for strangers?

Moreover, if morality is just "what helped us survive," then by that logic, rape, infanticide, and tribal genocide — all of which occur in nature and human history — are just as "evolved." Are they therefore morally good? If not, you’ve got a problem: you’re trying to get “ought” from “is,” and that move has been philosophically bankrupt since David Hume identified the fallacy 300 years ago.

You also claimed empathy became “hardwired.” How, precisely? Show me the genes for empathy. Demonstrate the molecular mechanism by which “you scratch my back” mutates into weeping over a starving child in a documentary. That leap — from chemical incentive to abstract moral sentiment — isn’t explained by biology. It’s merely assumed. That’s not science. That’s mythology — a materialist creation myth.

And then you close with a swipe at God — claiming He "forgot" the psychopaths. But in your own view, psychopathy isn’t a defect, it's just another evolutionary variant. Why shouldn’t the psychopath rule, lie, and kill if it gets him ahead? Your system has no authority to say he’s wrong — only that he’s maladaptive according to your preferences.

So let’s be clear:

• You have no science showing how moral awareness evolves.
• You offer no grounding for why empathy is good or binding.
• You assume evolution gave us “morality,” but dismiss the millions of evolutionary behaviors we now condemn.
• You mock theism, but then borrow its framework to claim moral judgments that only make sense if humans are more than meat.

If your worldview were true, we'd still be in caves — not arguing about ethics online.

 

[Tiger]

I have no problem with people having their faith, bully for them. I object to the hijacking of science and gnosticism (as previously mentioned). I'm not going to stop objecting to that

TIger obviously has a very low IQ and he commits both crimes.. And I'm not going to stop slapping him around for it

The only thing you are ‘slapping around’ are those two lonely marbles rattling around in your skull.

 

[AN2]

Your answer shows exactly how shallow your position is. You've given it no thought whatsoever.

You're asserting that morality — empathy in this case — emerged from reciprocal survival strategies ("you scratch my back...") and became "hardwired." That’s a popular evolutionary psychology narrative, but it’s not science — it’s speculative storytelling dressed up in Darwinian terminology.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself, there is nothing more speculative than your God story

Evolution is a well established scientific theory, there is zero evidence for your God

There is no empirical evidence showing how selfless empathy — especially at great personal cost — could have evolved from blind natural selection. If natural selection favors reproductive success, why do we lionize people who die for strangers?

Moreover, if morality is just "what helped us survive," then by that logic, rape, infanticide, and tribal genocide — all of which occur in nature and human history — are just as "evolved." Are they therefore morally good? If not, you’ve got a problem: you’re trying to get “ought” from “is,” and that move has been philosophically bankrupt since David Hume identified the fallacy 300 years ago.

You also claimed empathy became “hardwired.” How, precisely? Show me the genes for empathy. Demonstrate the molecular mechanism by which “you scratch my back” mutates into weeping over a starving child in a documentary. That leap — from chemical incentive to abstract moral sentiment — isn’t explained by biology. It’s merely assumed. That’s not science. That’s mythology — a materialist creation myth.

And then you close with a swipe at God — claiming He "forgot" the psychopaths. But in your own view, psychopathy isn’t a defect, it's just another evolutionary variant. Why shouldn’t the psychopath rule, lie, and kill if it gets him ahead? Your system has no authority to say he’s wrong — only that he’s maladaptive according to your preferences.

So let’s be clear:

• You have no science showing how moral awareness evolves.
• You offer no grounding for why empathy is good or binding.
• You assume evolution gave us “morality,” but dismiss the millions of evolutionary behaviors we now condemn.
• You mock theism, but then borrow its framework to claim moral judgments that only make sense if humans are more than meat.

If your worldview were true, we'd still be in caves — not arguing about ethics online.

 

[Tiger]

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself, there is nothing more speculative that your God story

Evolution is a well established scientific theory, there is zero evidence for God

There you have it folks. James defaulting to vacuous statements when he’s confronted with difficult questions that require some deeper thought.

He is the living embodiment of ‘Exhibit A’.

 

[AN2]

Your answer shows exactly how shallow your position is. You've given it no thought whatsoever.

You're asserting that morality — empathy in this case — emerged from reciprocal survival strategies ("you scratch my back...") and became "hardwired." That’s a popular evolutionary psychology narrative, but it’s not science — it’s speculative storytelling dressed up in Darwinian terminology. There is no empirical evidence showing how selfless empathy — especially at great personal cost — could have evolved from blind natural selection. If natural selection favors reproductive success, why do we lionize people who die for strangers?

Moreover, if morality is just "what helped us survive," then by that logic, rape, infanticide, and tribal genocide — all of which occur in nature and human history — are just as "evolved." Are they therefore morally good? If not, you’ve got a problem: you’re trying to get “ought” from “is,” and that move has been philosophically bankrupt since David Hume identified the fallacy 300 years ago.

You also claimed empathy became “hardwired.” How, precisely? Show me the genes for empathy. Demonstrate the molecular mechanism by which “you scratch my back” mutates into weeping over a starving child in a documentary. That leap — from chemical incentive to abstract moral sentiment — isn’t explained by biology. It’s merely assumed. That’s not science. That’s mythology — a materialist creation myth.

And then you close with a swipe at God — claiming He "forgot" the psychopaths. But in your own view, psychopathy isn’t a defect, it's just another evolutionary variant. Why shouldn’t the psychopath rule, lie, and kill if it gets him ahead? Your system has no authority to say he’s wrong — only that he’s maladaptive according to your preferences.

So let’s be clear:

• You have no science showing how moral awareness evolves.
• You offer no grounding for why empathy is good or binding.
• You assume evolution gave us “morality,” but dismiss the millions of evolutionary behaviors we now condemn.
• You mock theism, but then borrow its framework to claim moral judgments that only make sense if humans are more than meat.

If your worldview were true, we'd still be in caves — not arguing about ethics online.

You're just all over the place in your angry bird witherings

If it's not biology, "brain chemistry", why did God forget to make all humans moral?

 

[céline]

You're just all over the place in your angry bird witherings

If it's not biology, "brain chemistry", why did God forget to make all humans moral?

Do you believe in free will, AN2?

 

[AN2]

Do you believe in free will, AN2?

Oh here we go