"Here, if I am right, you're essentially saying you have chosen to follow "science" in a way because they have bettered society. I return to the morality argument and ask, why is bettering society and our life conditions a good thing?

You try to answer again that evolution naturally strives toward life. Why is this so?"

Bettering life conditions is better because as a biological organism I am subject to many natural wants such as hunger, fatigue, and thirst, as well as many less base wants. It's clear to me that it is pleasurable to have food, and not pleasurable to go hungry. It is in my interest to seek pleasure and avoid pain because I am more or less hardwired for this purpose, because for the most part pleasure coincides with what is good for me in terms of evolution, and pain coincides with what is bad for me. I don't mean to say that these things are good because they are evolutionarily good. I mean these things are good because they are pleasurable, and pleasure is more desirable than pain. I could not explain that to you more clearly and rely on your human empathy and common experience to agree, just as I could not explain to you the colour orange unless you had also seen it.

I admit that this argument is almost a tautology because bettering social conditions is almost synonymous with satisfying our wants. We'd like to solve world hunger, thirst, and cure disease. These wants exist whether you're atheist or theist, and I don't think God very explicitly tells you to eat because eating is a good thing, or cure disease because being sick is a bad thing but, and because, we all have a strong feeling that solving world hunger and curing the world's diseases are worthwhile endeavours. The Bible doesn't tell you why you need to satisfy so many wants simply to continue existing, I think we both take it as an accepted fact, and it's no surprise that the "betterment" of society is built up around this principle.

I thought I had already answered the question as to why evolution would instill in us a strong value of life and sense of preservation several times, but maybe I haven't been clear enough? Let's say we have two groups antelopes. One group has a strong self of preservation, the other one is ambivalent. They are in direct competition for resources that are scarce. There's only so much grass, and they must be wary of predators. The antelopes which value their life will eat the grass and run away from the predators because they know this is what they must do to continue living, which they value. The other antelopes have no compulsion to eat the grass or run from the predators because they're indifferent to whether they live or die. What happens? The ones with no value of life are dead. They've starved or have been eaten. The only antelopes left are the ones with a value of life. They reproduce as antelopes are liable to do (because they value reproduction, as can be shown to be advantageous by a similar example), and their offspring most likely inherent their value of life. It is no surprise then that almost every antelope has a strong value of life and will run for it's precious life when a cheetah comes up on the horizon. There might be a mutant every now and then that doesn't have this value, but it will quickly die, and will rarely be able to reproduce to pass on it's mutation. Does this make things clearer? A value on life is only one of the innumerable values that evolution has given us.

As an added note to the freedom idea, I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean I can do anything I want because I would grant that same freedom to every other human.

@onar and chrisp -

" want to be moral, and when given freedom I am moral. I think you'll find that most people who do immoral things do it because of a lack of freedom... out of necessity, and not out of a simple want to do immoral things. They might be starving or someone could be forcing them to do such things."

This is crazily optimistic. "Most" people that murder, murder out of necessity? What could be the necessity!? "Most" people that rape, rape out of necessity? What could the possible necessity be?!

What about even smaller things, like common lack of courtesy or respect? The teenage girl that jabs on her cell phone loud enough for an entire restaurant is doing so out of necessity?! The Christian who is brow-beating and bible-thumping others to adapt his worldview out of necessity?!

I demand an explanation for these things. You're both just given a sweepingly optimistic view of evil that just doesn't fit in line with reality. It sounds good, but fails utterly.

The Biblical criticism was a funny mistake Chrisp. Read the sire before you post a link to it. And Onar I'm not sure if you read your site either. The arguments given are quite weak compared to the arguments against the Qu'ran.

But the responses to both arguments are the same. I want to respond to the morality bit, but I'm too tired to do so.

I have noticed one advantage to being an atheist on the internet. That is that when expressing doubt, one need only express one's doubt and then continuously tweak the original argument to add in factors brought up in your opponent's rebuttal. So, debates quickly degenrate into "well what about this..." over an over. One of the cardinal rules of rhetoric is "focus on your topic". In that vein I think it's probably time for a couple of other threads that are more specialized.

"This is crazily optimistic. "Most" people that murder, murder out of necessity? What could be the necessity!? "Most" people that rape, rape out of necessity? What could the possible necessity be?!"

Ok, it was probably too much of a blanket statement. I will say that the vast majority of people do not murder or rape. The much more common crimes such as theft are done out of necessity.

"What about even smaller things, like common lack of courtesy or respect? The teenage girl that jabs on her cell phone loud enough for an entire restaurant is doing so out of necessity?! The Christian who is brow-beating and bible-thumping others to adapt his worldview out of necessity?!"

Well geez, clearly these things don't come the Bible either. I don't even know if I would claim that these people are immoral because it doesn't seem like the right word to use. Inconsiderate is probably a better one.

"I demand an explanation for these things. You're both just given a sweepingly optimistic view of evil that just doesn't fit in line with reality. It sounds good, but fails utterly."

I would not claim that I can offer one. My claim was too broad, I absolutely agree. I didn't mean to explain away evil with a simple assertion like that. I think you took what I said too seriously and aggressively, especially considering it's relative unimportance in the debate. It still does not follow that you can say that my lack of explanation points to the existence of God and the correctness of the Bible. I think you'll agree that many religious people have done immoral and evil things, and that non-religious people have done good things. I would say the proportion of good and evil in religious and non-religious people is equal. The entire point of this discussion of morality is simply that there is no reason you must have God as a moral authority in order to be moral. I think we got lost along the way.

"The Biblical criticism was a funny mistake Chrisp. Read the sire before you post a link to it. And Onar I'm not sure if you read your site either. The arguments given are quite weak compared to the arguments against the Qu'ran."

Yes, it is, and I thank Onar for correcting me. I actually meant to link to the article that Onar posted, but my Ctrl+C apparently didn't work, and when I pasted here, it pasted the first, incorrect link. Reading over the incorrect link that I posted though, there are historical criticisms present that question the reliability of the Bible as a historical and truthful source of information.

"I have noticed one advantage to being an atheist on the internet. That is that when expressing doubt, one need only express one's doubt and then continuously tweak the original argument to add in factors brought up in your opponent's rebuttal. So, debates quickly degenrate into "well what about this..." over an over. One of the cardinal rules of rhetoric is "focus on your topic". In that vein I think it's probably time for a couple of other threads that are more specialized."

CA, I think it's fair to say there's enough "What about this?" on both sides. I can empathize with your frustration because I also feel like my arguments are falling on deaf ears. If you haven't gotten the theme of my arguments so far, it's basically that there is no reason to assume the existence of any supernatural being without evidence, and this includes the God of the New Testament. bartdogg attempted to give evidence, which turned out to be more of evidence based on a lack of evidence in our current understanding of the universe, though I put forth a refutation on other terms as well. You've just given the interesting idea that religion has social benefits, that while not speaking to the verity of the religion, perhaps justifies it.

I think we've been waylaid by tangential arguments such as what Francis Collins thinks, or what constitutes freedom, but I think most of my "what about this" sort of things have been because instead of addressing the crux of my argument I've been dodged, and so I must add "what about this" as extra factors to close you in so that you have to address the crux of my argument, which I feel has been not been satisfied.

The crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now is that you cannot assume the existence of God unless there is evidence for it, and furthermore you cannot make value judgements based on that assumption. You can't assume God's existence on a lack of evidence against, or on a gap in our current understanding of the world.

I actually have been following the basis of what you're saying, and please don't interpret anything I have to say as frustration. I get on these forums more often then not, to see how people normally argue and keep a list of fallacies and how they are used. I'm an English teacher by trade and this is basically action research for me. It's just a hobby. :-)

Well, I like to think most of my fallacies are just because I don't always explicitly outline the argument, or I try to save time and assume that the intent is brought across. You can point them out to me, and I'll try to make the logic more explicit, but I'm usually less formal out of practicality. Worst comes to worst, I'll have to come to face my logical holes, which is good, because it's one of the reasons I debate. I don't actually do it in the hopes of convincing others, but in the much more reasonable hope of finding gaps in my reasoning. =)

As to the crux of your argument here is my response. While it works for you and you're as justified in applying it as I am in disreagrding it, it is a fallacy. It is such because it can prove nothing about the existence of God. The statement alone is more of a limiting of the opposition than it is an actual thesis in and of itself. It's Occam's razor used in a way that William of Ockam specifically stated would not work. That is Occam's razor is only useful when searching for something that can be found. It is not a philosophical tool, it's a mathematical one. It states (in very general terms) assume the simplest (or most obvious) answer and start there, but it does not preclude the verity of the more complex (less obvious) ones.

In rhetoric it is a fallacy because it is (usually) knowingly used to preclude the existence of God as a possibilty and therefore make his non-existence the paradigm. Basically it's shifting the burden of proof in a manner that doesn't work for the context. It's good for science class, but cannot necessarily be generalized to a philosophical situation. It's a decent move strategically, but it's really just the counter-point among theists who might say "You can't prove my God doesn't exist". You're essentially saying "You can't prove he does" and adding to it the limiting factor "You can't assume he does". Which I can and do, based upon evidence from my own longitudinal study. ;-)

* to theists -- not among theists

I'm not trying to go all school marminsh on ya', but you asked. I'm a lot less formal on internet forums too. No worries.

I would argue that it's shifting the burden of proof for a theist to say "You can't prove my God doesn't exist". As an atheist agnostic, I am not asserting that I know that God doesn't exist. Otherwise, I would agree, that I would have to come up with proof that God does not exist. I don't know whether God does truly does exist or not. This argument is only knowingly used to preclude the existence of God as a possibility because that's the only thing we'd debate. I don't think we'd argue whether or not Thor or Krishna exist, so while the argument is equally applicable there, you would not hear it. The burden of proof lies with whomever makes the assertion. If I told you I could turn into a cat, and you said "Prove it." and I said "Well, prove that I can't", I think you'd dismiss my claim and say quite rightly that the burden of proof is on me.

Religion asserts that their respective God/pantheon of gods exists, and they should be responsible for coming up with proof, it shouldn't be up to anyone else to prove otherwise. I would be using this same argument if you were arguing for the existence of Allah or the Easter bunny. I would never assert that I can know for certain that the Easter bunny or Allah does not exist in the philosophical sense, but in a more practical manner I do not bother to assume their existence any more than I bother to assume the existence of any of the infinite panoply of beings and objects that could exist beyond my senses and cognition. Occam's Razor is similar, but it needn't be invoked.

I liked the last few posts quite a bit. They all showed humility and honesty. Quite fun stuff.

Chrisp - I admit I've also jumped on tangents. Though, to be honest, most of them not with you. I feel like I was dragged into the mud elsewhere.

That said, here is what I've been trying to say since the beginning, to this, which you say: "The crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now is that you cannot assume the existence of God unless there is evidence for it, and furthermore you cannot make value judgements based on that assumption. You can't assume God's existence on a lack of evidence against, or on a gap in our current understanding of the world."

What I've been trying to say is that this is what Keller and others have called "self-rationalsim" and it fails its own test. How can you empirically prove that to believe something it has to be empirically proven? You can't, and it comes out to a belief system; the exact thing that seems to be frowned upon by guys like Dawkins et al.

bartdogg, in your final paragraph, try to ignore the God debate and see if you still agree with your statement. You don't prove things in the philosophical logically water-tight sense of the word. You prove things so that beyond any reasonable doubt, through inductive logic, that something is true in a pragmatic sense. It is knowledge that can be used an manipulated, even in another context, and it will still be useful. I accept that scientific findings may not be accepted as absolutely true in the philosophical sense of the word, but they remain practically true and extremely useful. If the scientific method is based upon that gem of circular logic you say it does, then how do you rationalize the immense advances in the past few centuries that have come as a result of the scientific method? It's amazing, almost everything around us is a direct consequence and benefit of it, that's an empirical fact, can you deny it?

But I thought we were talking about the God debate. Did we switch? My apologies if we have, ha! Perhaps that's our misunderstandings.

What I'm trying to say is that you're bringing in a desire for empirical evidence to the existence, or lack thereof, of God. I agree that empirical evidence works because we're in a world that has constants. I would hope that I believe things that have been empirically proven to be true. However, I would not, NOT believe something because it has NOT been empirically proven. Does that make sense? The two are very different things.

Take a look at your position though. It's a fallacy because you've made the positive claim that I'm wrong to assume the existence of God based upon what you perceive to be a lack of evidence, and then told me that I have to prove that my value judgments are valid by shifting the burden.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now is that you cannot assume the existence of God unless there is evidence for it, and furthermore you cannot make value judgements based on that assumption. You can't assume God's existence on a lack of evidence against, or on a gap in our current understanding of the world."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several problematic assumptions here:

1) How do you know that I accept anyone's interpretation of the scripture other than my own? (I do at times, but most of the time I don't).

2) How do you know that scripture and the authority of Church hierarchy has much (if any) place in my thinking about making a judgment? (scripture does it's generally 1/3 of the picture. The word of an authority figure in the church has little if any bearing.)

3) What makes you think that my religion requires obedience to any other person or interpretation of Scripture? I'm certainly not a "sola scriptura" person nor does my religion require it. It is also never permissible in my church for an authority figure to claim specifically to "know God's will". Church leaders are treated as fellow Christians and nothing more.

Again to assume any of these thing is fallacious because you can not know what I'm thinking. THerefore it's a stereotype at best and the fallacy of omniscience at worst. It allows the formation of a straw-man in which you can attack my basis for making value judgments while never really bothering to find out what that basis really is.

*things

Fair enough bartdogg.

I don't think Chris or anyone else is trying to say; no, God can't exist. (though if you want to me to come up with arguments that argue absolutely against HIS existence, then I can :))

He is merely saying (lets see if I can fit this into one sentence;

In an empirical world, God cannot be sufficiently empirically justified, and because God does not *necessarily* exist, then it is problematic to assume he does in an absolute way, which, religion being the way it is, seems to be the case.

Not not God, but not necessarily God, and therefore not necessarily for both.

"However, I would not, NOT believe something because it has NOT been empirically proven. Does that make sense? The two are very different things."

I understand what you're saying, but why would you (if I can cancel the negatives) believe something that cannot be empirically proven? By what other means can you ascertain if something is true or not true? There is an infinite panoply of beings and things that could exist beyond what can be empirically proven, but you would not assume the existence of any of them, except for your God.

Crazy Anglican, the problem with the value judgements is not thier potential personal basis', but whether they can be disputed and brought to light in a manner that accepts rational criticism.

ie. Arguing against Gay Marriage.

Sure, you can argue against and claim religion as your inspiration, but once you claim it as your proof.... well then, 'Houston, we have have a problem'.

I'm just going to throw in what I'd like to call a little centrist pragmatism here...

Why is everyone fighting? Can't we compromise? Is saying that someone tried to interpret gods message thousands of years ago correct? If I emphasized the word "tried" would it be less correct? Isn't it perfectly human to have trouble comprehending god?

So why the absolute conviction in all sacred texts? And if not absolute, how about a compromise?

One of the things I notice stands out in Jesus' teachings is an emphasis on 'love'. If love, why not Gay Marriage? (Dare i ask: what would Jesus do?)

Good FS. That's essentially what I was getting at. It seems perhaps CA has argued it more clearly and eloquently than I.

Then I refer you to CA's conversation about the positive effects of religion. This is in regard to saying it is "problematic" to assume God does exist.

Or check out Dr. Richter of Johns Hopkins Medical School. He carried out an experiment that attempted to measure the motivational effect of hope. The experiments involved placing rats into cylinders of water that were thirty inches deep by eight inches wide. After a short time, half of the rats were momentarily rescued by being lifted out of the cylinder for a few seconds, then put right back into the water. The other half were not. The group that was given hope swam for more than three days. The other rats drowned almost immediately.

At the least, hope is a powerful thing. What have we to hope in should all our beliefs be based upon empirical proof?

CA, I didn't make ANY of those assumptions. None of them are necessary for my argument. I have no idea where you even came up with them, because I hadn't the slightest of inclinations to assert any of those three assumptions.

My basic assertions are that:
1. You cannot assume the existence of God (or anything) without evidence.
2. You cannot make value judgements based upon the assumption that God exists when you cannot even make that assumption.

I support the first assertion by pointing out that there are an infinite number of beings that cannot be empirically proven, including the numerous God's of other religions that you surely reject. There is no reason to assume that any of the infinite number of beings that we cannot prove to exist does exist. If the opposite were true then we might accept the existence of Odin, Ra, and the purple fuzz monster.

I support the second assertion by saying that if the opposite were true, a group who assumed the existence of the Great Juju Fish In The Sky would have an equal right to make the value judgement that sex is entirely wrong, so the Fish hath spoken, and push that value judgement on others. For a more down to Earth example, many Muslims believe that women must have their face covered, so the prophets, and Allah through them, hath decreed, but would you accept that as a valid value judgement to be pushed onto others? Belief is too subjective for value judgements to be made. If women should cover their faces or homosexuality is a sin, the argument must be made on common secular terms.

Then we have no problem with religious value judgments. What are religious sects if not people interpreting their vision of God in different ways. How are these different interpretations arrived upon other than through discourse and disagreement. Religion is something that invites logic and disagreement. If you have been subjected to the small minority that do not then you were right to reject it, but it is not necessarily representative of all others.

As to arguing against gay marriage this is an area in which a societal more has taken hold in the guise of religious teaching. Check into the history of homophobia, it's pretty interesting in that it pre-dates Christianity in Greco-Roman society by at least 500 years. Anti-Gay graffitti can be found that dates back 2500 years in Greece.

@Chrisp - The clues I've given above were sufficient for me. I didn't feel the absolute need for empirical evidence. I took a leap; though it was quite unlike the "leap" that is often portrayed by the media. The leap from the clues I've given to belief in God is a minimal one, but still a leap.

No, I'm not saying it's okay because other people do it too. I'm merely saying that it was there before and concurrently to Christianity, and people will use whatever justification is available to back up their prejudices. That fact does not necessarily show causation on the part of religion, nor does it preclude it.

So CA, are you saying that being anti-gay marriage is merely homophobia and is contrary, or atleast not the same, as being a christian?

And @ Chrisp - I've stated it before, but the historical reality of the resurrection was by far the most convincing thing for me to get to the point of wanting to take the "leap." You've stated a few times that you'd reconsider everything and perhaps leap yourself should some amputee regrow a limb or something of the like, and I would say someone raising from the dead would be equal to the task.

Seriously, the resurrection is tough to argue against, and is the biggest clue.

"At the least, hope is a powerful thing. What have we to hope in should all our beliefs be based upon empirical proof?"

That sounds so dreary and depressing. For one, I can put my hope into my fellow human being. I can put my hope into science. I can hope that my mother will like the gift I got her for her birthday, and I don't think I need to pray to God that she will like it, I must trust my judgement and use my knowledge of her preferences. I can hope that my grandmother receives appropriate treatment for her stomach cancer, but I don't need to pray for it, but I can hope that my father's return to China will have a positive supporting effect, and that recent progress made in China will provide her with adequate treatment in a once impoverished country. I can hope that I'll be accepted into the Neuroscience Major program at McGill University, but I don't thank God if I do, I credit my hard work and perseverance and thank those who have supported my education. I hope that this weekend will be fun, but I'll look to my friends, and with some luck the weather will be good too!