"You have chosen to deny me that courtesy"
You know, Greg. There is an alternative to making up bizarre nonsense when you are unable to counter or respond to the substance of posts: You could say nothing rather than remove all doubt.
"What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Talk about non responsive."
Stop playing stupid. You have said that evolution prevents people from setting ethical guidelines for conduct--to "judge between right and wrong"; that just because we evolved we cannot use our reason or our judgment. Such an idea is so idiotic that I mocked it with some sarcasm, to wit: wondering how we can use reason to do anything else then or to judge anything else such as algebra, piano playing, etc. My post was entirely responsive, but when you get hit with a sledge hammer you seem to go into babble mode.
"You are the one who denies God's being and promotes the ridiculous notion that the universe spontaneously jumped into existence"
Unable to respond to my point ("There is nothing in evolution which prevents people from playing the piano, doing algebra, or setting standards of behavior. Why should the fact of evolution prevent people from assessing and determining? You are just babbling, Greg."), you switch to an unrelated blustering rant about how a perfectly eternal unicorn decided to mess with a good thing--something YOU know all the details of! LOL!
Nobody knows how the universe came into existence...much less whether or not there are titanic creatures in it. But evolution is certainly a fact documented by science and accepted by all but the most extreme radicals of fundamental religious mystics. These are the "flat-earth" mentalities of the religious world.
"Given the above presuppositions you have nothing but nature to derive ethics from"
We have HUMAN Nature to derive ethics from. Please get the first lesson--OK? HUMAN ethics derive from HUMAN Nature. Human beings reason; they desire and they fear. When humans associate...a concern for survival, safety, and happiness is most rationally met by treating one another according to certain objective standards. Mostly this means protecting life and property from harm. Holy cow! That is just so complicated, eh Greg! How can people possibly think, judge, and value if evolution is true?!
"These ethical notions are certainly innate but they are by no means axiomatic. They are only logical if you start with the ethic that you are trying to justify. Otherwise it is like a preference for ice cream, you can take it or leave it."
What? You deny that the drive for survival and happiness is axiomatic? The desire to preserve ones life and to be happy is not prima facie in evidence? What planet are you living on?
On the relatively rare occasions when people do seek death rather than survival it is because the drive for happiness is too too obscured and overshadowed by anguish, suffering, and the improbability of relief. These are facts. All your chants of "Kum By Ya" cannot alter these facts. If you wish to pretend that the choice between life and death--between happiness and misery--is analogous to a preference in ice cream...be my guest. But you know damn well you are just babbling nonsense.
"Sadly that appears to be exactly the way the world is heading"
No, that is NOT the way the world seems to be heading. In secular society where Church and State are separated, one finds people mostly respecting the ethical mores. And more pertinent yet to the point (which was to demonstrate the inanity of your accusation that "might is right" is the most logical ethic for atheists)--where we do find bestial bloodbaths, we do not find atheists claiming credit. Will we ever be done with these religious killings and their bloody Absolute ethics?
"That is because Theists at least have a rational, if only theoretical basis for transcendent ethics"
LOL! How can it be rational if it is based on false premises which may offer no basis for understanding the nature of reality? By your own admission: Islam, Hinduism, and thousands of other religions derive their ethics from false Gods, false premises, and untruths. They deal with myth and fancy. So how do lies and illusion provide a “sufficient justification for ethics”?? What a crock!?!
"If "Man is the Measure" then whatever He wants to be ethical is ethical."
Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Now you understand why we have 10,000 religions! Fortunately, we may ground our ethics in objective experience and reason rather than in the insane visions of misfits, mystics, and charlatans. We don't need to stone old men to death for gathering firewood on a Saturday, and we don't need to beat women with sticks for wearing high heels. We don't need to gut a bird and spread the entrails to know what is in our best interests as human beings. Evolution gave us a brain. We are free to use it...or NOT. |
