Evolutionary morality - 2.0

by A. Uiet Bhor.

( This includes a dialogue with the infamous "goldie" who responded with an unflattering critique, that I took apart to further demonstrate the reasoning behind the essay. )

Introspection is an untrustworthy guide, I'd rather look to what is real, nature, and out best model of understanding it, in order to build a moral philosophy.

Social Darwinism is disliked by evolutionists, it is too Malthusian, un-compassionate, so morality is created separately from the world of science, but there still is some pointers from Darwin's work for the social engineer.

Evolution was seen by Wallace has having nothing to say on the subject of morals, however the process can guide a philosopher in how to ensure the survival of laws. They key lies in the parallel of the environment shaping the animal, and the culture shaping the laws. If a species cannot adapt to new conditions it goes extinct, if it can it becomes a new species, if a law cannot remain relevant or keep up with society's overall moral level it becomes archaic, backward, a retarding factor that society will grow to resent.

You must set certain mechanisms in place with moral principles, even basic "absolute" morals that take into account the enlightened state of a society or the law will be changed by someone or something else, i.e. rebellion. No laws concerning sexual activity during the mosaic era apply today, attitudes to gays as softened, or "progressed" depending on you views. I may consider myself enlightened enough to make morals that all mankind can agree with, but if I make then in stone then they may become increasingly irrelevant. New inventions, discoveries, philosophies, cultures, all need new morals, laws, so no matter how advanced moral laws may be at their origination, they will become to small to encompass the race 500 years from now.

All morals and laws must be transitory, adaptable and so I reject the religious laws of torah, bible or Koran as stagnant. Can the teaching of Jesus help us with cloning? Can Islam tell us about paedophiles? Many priests or Imams try to claim they have the answers, derived from their "understanding" of their holy books. They make themselves moral guardians of right(eousness), but in fact most things that societies worries about today are not the same worries as those of ancient Israel or Arabia. In some ways mankind is universal, and there are certain timeless features, problems, questions, and these are what appeal to the bible lovers, they think that because they have been "answered" by their faith, then that's everything covered, all existence in a book, THE book. However, they fail to see that, in order to glean modern answers from ancient texts a religious leader has to interprets, twist, infer, divine, or make up, but in reality, the prophets and saints could not even comprehend many modern dilemmas let alone offer any solutions.

A holy text is a series of snapshots of a another time, language, ideals, beliefs, and ethics, all of a bygone era, and some aspects of these old cultures hold up to critical scrutiny better than others. The theological ideals are inspiring, (if you like that sort of thing) the stories are riveting, the details are of interest to historians and anthropologists, but the morals don't age well, and looked at with modern sensitivities, are abhorrent, period.

Stories are eternal, supernatural concepts can evolve but often fight change, but ethics is were the bibles fall apart. The mosaic laws, brutal, the golden rule, vague and open to extreme interpretation, Mohammedian, better but still static, and not prophetic. They all fail to anticipate change, social or technological, and don't even acknowledge it is going on. All assume society will remain pretty much the same forever, or until the "end time". Rather short sighted, but they couldn't have seen the world today, not event the most progressive thinkers of the last century could visualise all that takes place today.

Is it asking too much for religious laws to keep up? Yes. And is it asking too much to expect us to still follow laws that are irrelevant, and to believe Jesus hates gays, abortionists and porn films? Yes. These are extrapolations, and even if these attitudes were accurate of the morals of the ancients, does that make them right? Should we base the most important decisions of our lives on one time, one culture forever? Were they better then than we are now, or are we better now? Are the people who insist on basing society on the laws of old, imposing the unjust and barbaric principles of a bunch of thugs, while claiming moral superiority? It all depends on whether you believe in god, if not then Moses, Jesus and co were just men, not capable of foreseeing all that our race would become, and can be safely ignored. At the end of the day, faith is the enemy of progress and better moral standards, as so many of are modern moral attitudes have no biblical parallels.

Only by acknowledging what were are, a race of finite, evolving primates can we build a world based on a transient set of values, not ideals of long dead men, perceives as gods or prophets. They were all just like us, they are dead, we are alive, we matter now, they don't. I see society as sometimes going forwards sometimes back, but not all progress is good, cloning may be the next step but personally I would fight that step. This is the reason why we sometimes go back, people who are afraid of what the future holds, or that regard the ideal culture as already been reached, (an attitude common in Islam) will fight all progress, not discern good from bad.

Many cultures hark to an ancient utopia, Solomon to the Jews, Atlantis to the Greek philosophers, the caliphs in the middle-east. This is largely a product of religion or mysticism, a supposed solid reference, or precedence to steer for. History shows the past does have aspects that should be preserved, but very few. Most of history belongs there, I would hate to see the return of the feudal society or the death penalty. But to hate all the past and blindly rush forward is also a bad idea, all that is new is not better, and those who fail to learn from history, etc.

The solution is an amalgam, the best of all are cultures, in all periods, but there are many interpretations of what was laudable about ancient civilisations. As a sceptic I would choose Athens, but many theists, the days of their churches greatest power. It is understandable that conservatives would rather things slowed down, they are satisfied with the status quo, all who are fight change. They miss the past, but nostalgia should not be mistaken for an accurate appraisal of the past, I'm sure many others hated the "good old days", a dispassionate assessment of the past and a open minded judgement if new ideas is the ideal we should all aim for. Nature made itself, now it is up to us. If we keep relying on non existent deity and spirits we will be unable to exempt responsibility as a culture, as a race we will fail to live up to are potential, we have spend millions of years struggling to get here, and we will have millions of years ahead.

Believing that it is all ultimately up to some higher power is childish. We need to grow up, the world is not going to end, Jesus is not coming "soon" we can't keep banking on salvation, it has cost are ancestors dearly, it was cost even more if we allow emotions and wishful thinking to blind us to the truth. Evolution may take a god away but it gives us far more, a place in the universe of much greater importance. The highest form of life, not the cursed outcasts of Eden, but the custodians of it, we are the angles with the fiery sword, we must protect are planet and ourselves, we can't if we refuse to acknowledge what we are. We are nature made aware and nature is the universe made manifest. A past, far greater than scripture, is behind us, and a future, far greater, ahead. The only way is up, the theist must stop trying to push us down, and the revolutionary must be careful not to take us somewhere be don't belong.

As we say in my Shire, moderation in all things, and only upset the apple-cart with mouldy contents.

AUB

The fit will survive, the weak will perish.

That's how atheists tell us we got here in the first place, and they have total knowledge...that's how they can be atheists and not agnostics.

So please stop your whining about "morality" or "ethics" and DO AS YOU WILL!

I AM doing as I will. I'm trying to help people, by advising others on ethical philosophical structures. How we got here does not define who we are, anymore than the cosmological principles and gravitational laws that created this solar system should dictate are ethics, they allowed us to be, and still impact on our existence, but are not a component of our morality, or our civilisation, just the background. I'm just using biology as a model, using the successful evolutionary model and applying it to social questions. Its seems a better use of someone's time, than being a narrow minded theistic reactionary.

It doesn't take total knowledge to be rule out god, all it takes a brain larger than the impotent pea theists like to avoid using. From every angle, religion is an inferior method of social improvement, as seen by your ignorant rant that doesn't address any of my essay, and just throws bigoted slogans at someone who only bothers to respond because I happen to find your type of infantile mentality amusing. I wouldn't bother otherwise, you're just light entertainment to me.

As to agnostics, they're unsure, I am very sure, my reasoning is thorough, my research, close to conclusive, I'd like to see a theists be anywhere near as methodical and honest. I'm after the truth, I haven't found it all yet, but I'm at least sure that neither has any religion.

This essay is not about the morality of evolution, which is descriptive of a process that has and is still taking place within and around us, ethics have nothing to do with it. The validity of a scientific theory, or in this case a fact, does not rest on whether it conforms to peoples arbitrary ethical judgements, based on religious scripture.

If nature doesn't conform to your god's supposed master plan maybe that's something you should take up with him. You have no right to condemn nature, or say that scientist have got it wrong, as you are in no position to make such a claim.

Evolution is not a blueprint for an amoral life, xianity is, salvation depends on recognition of Jesus, not on a good life. Those in hell are non-believers, not always bad people, and the most evil bastards of all time are in heaven, because they were "saved" or were members of the xian cult. Ivan the terrible, Vlad the impaler, Constantine the butcher, Martin "the anti-Semitic misogynist asshole" Luther, the crusaders, the "witch" burners, the inquisitors, all in heaven according to the divine plan as set forth in the bible. Whereas Asimov, Douglas Adams, Darwin, Ingersoll, Carl Sagan, all good people, noble, altruistic, who never hurt anybody, are burning for all eternity, thanks to Jesus.

I'm just glad it's all bull, and they're just as dead as all the others, equal, except in the eye's of those who remember.

That a process of dynamic and necessary change is regarded as "bad", while a static model, that denies mankind progress of any kind is "good", is as unappealing as it is untrue. As far as I'm concerned no theist has a right to claim to be moral or ethical, and should leave such issues to those who have a sense of responsibility to life in this world.

Your irrationality is typical..."I'm after the truth, but I haven't found it yet...but neither has ANY religion".

Your statement is incoherent...if you have not found the truth, then you do not know what the truth is; and if you do not know what it is, you can not be "sure" as you say that neither has any religion.

In fact, your very reliance on what you call "reason" is itself a huge circular argument...just because the circle is big does not make it logical.

You must maintain that mind has evolved through mindless processes, and that "reason" is simply a biochemical process of that mind. The evolution of that "mind" was adapted to this particular planet in this particular era, but scientists go on to argue that their "reason" is a reliable guide to truth about the entire universe.

They no more know that their biochemical burpings that they call "reason" are a reliable guide to the true nature of the universe than a dog does.

Further, you name the nobel altuistic atheists but have forgotten about, Marx, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Sartre, Sanger, and dozens of others responsible for the deaths of more millions in the 20th century alone that the inquistion, crusades, etc. put together.

Oh, well, maybe they were not "real" atheists... I know all the evasions; but I am reminded of Trotsky's inpirational remark, "Atheism gave me the courage to do the hard deeds, the necessary deeds." (yeah like riding around Russia in his armoured train burning churches and killing Christians,)

As far as I am concerned, no atheist has a right to claim to be moral or ethical and should leave such issues to those who have a sense of responsibility to life.

( When a freethinker points out the immoral theists in history as examples of the failure of religion to foster morality, why is it that the theist point out immoral atheists, as if that some how cancels out our observation of their inconsistent claims? We don't claim that not being religious in anyway makes you moral, just that being religious doesn't in anyway guarantee any fundamental ethical improvement, just superficial pseudo-moral pretensions. All the "saved" prostitutes and drugged up alcoholics and thieves in the world hardly makes up for war, genocide and mass murder does it? As a humanist, I promote ethics, for all, religious or not.

I dislike the theists assumption that having a god belief or fear of hell makes you, through some indirect process, moral, or that without it you are doomed to un-ethical behaviour automatically, as this simply isn't the case, just shallow propaganda. I'm for life protecting morality, and see religion simply as a theocratic authority out only for itself, that constantly fails to deliver on its moral promises, and so I've simply decided to stick to ethics without any clearly irrelevant theological trappings. The result is humanism, seems simple enough, but theists really have a problem with this, well so be it, if morality compels me to reject religion then I'll just have to demonstrate my reasons, and ignore the unreasonable. )

So Atheist Baiter, your "hatred" of atheism is well grounded in reality, you clearly dislike the communists, and other political radical who weren't theists, oh you left out the French revolutionists.

The question of whether they were "real" atheists is very different to the "real xians" argument the less intelligent brand of theists like to use. Atheism is not a creed or philosophy, let alone a religion. To not be religious, doesn't make your actions representative of other who aren't, as there are many thousands of reasons people don't join religions. Non that are devoid of political or ideological unity band together in the same way as theists tend to. Branding all atheists together makes as much sense as branding all non-xians together. You try to get all Muslims and Hindus to work together. Just because we aren't on your team, doesn't mean we are all in another team. If you hate communism fine, so do I, for reasons far better than yours I bet. But to hate one aspect of it, and take it out on other completely different people who happen to have that aspect, is irrational bigotry that even a theist should be ashamed of.

However I hardly think that these extremists radicals represent 1% of all atheists today, whereas the amount of theists that are fanatical, xian and Muslim is comparatively high, that is, if you're into percentages. I make similar points in other essays, so don't confuse with those people who hate religion and think atheism will solve all the words problems, I know full well its not that simple. However I am against all inhumane ideologies, whether atheistic or not, it is the inhumanity that I speak out against, I couldn't give a rats arse whether people use their faith to justify their pathetic movements or not. I don't consider myself atheistic, I'm a person, and I don't happen to go to church , big f**king deal.

Also I don't judge an institution entirely by it's history, I merely use history as a test of it's claims. The hundreds of xtian institutions that have done millions of terrible things over 1700 years, maybe because they have been around longer, maybe not, still outweighs the 3 or 4 atheistic governments that committed atrocities within a 70 year period. All I might add, for political and idealistic reasons, not overly atheistic, as atheism is not an ideology, it is merely an umbrella term for those who lack a theistic worldview, but I suppose you already know that.

There are 2 possibilities, you're either a religious fanatic, who simply ignores the responses to your idiocy, many of which are very good, and rip your arguments apart. Or you are a freethinker of some kind that has chosen to test our abilities. I think the latter is likely, as I cannot imagine anyone so dull as to use the same tired and old debunked arguments over and over again. Then again, if anyone were limited enough, a theist certainly would be.

I am not incoherent AB, I have investigated the religions of this world enough to know that their claims are not in anyway true, simply through studying their own doctrine. I've turned the "holy" books upside down, they are interesting relics of past cultures, and their limited superstitious world-view and ambitions give many insights, but otherwise crap pieces of work, childish, crude and incapable of explaining half of 1% of the universe as we know it. That an intelligent person could find such ridiculous claims satisfying clearly shows they are not intelligent but seek simplicity, and a "certain" fantasy over an uncertain reality.

I haven't got all the answers, I know a lot of things that most people don't, and it all points to one thing, naturalism as the only answer, all other philosophies, metaphysics and faiths are a sham. I could argue the logic of it if you like, but quite frankly I have better things to do, and I doubt you'd respond with anything other than ad homonyms, like the little school boy you like to be. I'll save it for those serious theists who give as good as they get, and you don't.

Your arguments against reason are lame, you offer no alternative. Your doubts on it's ability to apply to the entire universe are unfounded, you offer no "reason" to think it can't. You shouldn't just say something as significant as reason doesn't work, when you appear unable to use it yourself, and as a result make a non-argument, akin to saying, because birds learnt to fly via evolution, their wings can't really be trusted. Reason works, and faith doesn't, any claims otherwise, are to be scrutinised by reason, and I bet they will turn out to be unreasonable.

And don't question my reason, it as survived weeks of intense brainwashing and psychological torture by an Islamic fundamentalist, so it can break your mind, little creature, so don't f**king try me.

As to responsibility to life, I'm the one with the essay thread, not you. Give me something other than ineffective attempt to discredit me and maybe I'll treat you like an adult. Until then don't bother.

Mr. Bore seems to have forgotten that he initially claimed that he hadn't found the "truth"... now you are retreating and just saying that you don't have "all" the answers.

You then turn aroung and claim that ALL religions are wrong, as if you had some objective basis for judging anything whatsover, much less you claim to have some of the answers.

Ah well, arrogance and bigotry is apparently not limited to "fundamentalists"

But most intersting is you evasion that, in effect, atheism has no-beliefs and, I suppose you would add, makes no claims.

Of course, this does not prevent atheists from making claims about any subject you can name.

Now, if your "non-belief" belief has no implications, if no inferences can be drawn, and know conclusions reached, then your "belief". so to speak, is meaningless.

I.E. it means squat, zero. nada...

By the way, atheists managed to kill more people in the 20th century alone (and I did not bring up the 18th century French Revolutionists or the 19th century Russian athistic terrorists or even the 21st century Chinese Commies enforcing atheism on Tibetans as a means of destroying their cultural identity (Amnesty International site) because I was trying to give you a break.)than were killed in all the so called religious conflicts in the past 2000 years.

You go on to claim that "naturalism" is the only answer (and we'll let it pass that you have a "philosophy" in itself with that claim) without showing how natural processes have accounted for nautural law.

Your entire diatribe is subjective and self referential...but keep trying; for you I am sure it would be better than facing the implications of man not being the highest intelligence in the universe.

Ah! ha! he! ah! He called me bore! Ha! ha ha Oh! That's so funny, when arguing with someone of this intellectual calibre, I'd better get my thinking cap on.

But seriously, AB's attempts to entertain me are brightening up a rather dull evening, so I appreciate it, now on with the show.

First off, My claims to truth lie in my conclusions, based on the scientific method, and its application to the questions of philosophy, metaphysics and religion, the conclusions are simple and I'm hardly the first person to make them.

Philosophy, in order to be productive, must proceed on the basis that certain things have already been established, these include things that if wrong, would make any questioning, thinking and action meaningless. Such as whether we are real, and whether anything matters. These things are unproductive areas, and the purpose as far as I'm concerned of any philosophy is to better mankind's conditions, my reasons need not be discussed here.

So the basic conclusion is that what we sense, and can objectively verify, can be assumed to be true, providing they have been tested in such a way as to reduce the deceptive nature of humanities intrinsic unreliably. So the result can be independently verified and understood, using the constructs common to all peoples, i.e. maths, reason, physics, and a precise logical language etc. The result will not be perfect, but the closest we can get to a collaborative view on reality, in other words the scientific method. Metaphysics has never made a reliable, testable, predicable, or productive claim, thusly until it does, it is not considered.

All religion is wrong simply because they make un-qualified statements about the universe that science has proven to be wrong. The moral codes are not eternal, has they have, for the most part, been surpassed my other philosophies and by enlightened progressive ideals, as is evident in the societies most of us live in, and I shouldn't need to write a anthropology treatise to verify that, It is self evident.

Also the theistic claims are unproven, and deliberately unfalsifiable, thusly there is no reason to consider them, as the burden of proof is very firmly on the theists. Science delivers a rational explanation for the evidence it gathers. Religion come out of nowhere with improbable claims with no evidence save questionable anecdotes, and emotional pleas and dare us to challenge them. Which if course we do (when allowed), and then they just ignore these sceptical dissections, or fuzzy-logic there way out of it, to the satisfaction of the believers, but not the challengers, or educated. The required proof has never by any extent been given to the satisfaction of anyone without the religious bias of any given denomination. In other words the only people that buy it are those mentally effected by the faith in question, and whose opinion is rendered null and void due to lack of impartiality. Every faith uses methods that are un-exceptable to the empirical standards of any rational thinker.

AB may disagree that I have any truths, but I sense he'll disagree no matter what I say, so his opinion I'll ignore, as he is denying any knowledge I may have for the sake of it. To those of a reasonable disposition, I outline my method. For my conclusion to be excepted certain criteria must be assumed by the reader.

Assumption 1.

That the scientific method is the only valid one. It has proven itself beyond any reasonable doubt many times over. It has delivered on it's promises, made predictions that have been verified, and is the best way so far of compensating for the many ways humans can be fooled. AB may say we can know nothing for certain, well this includes theistic assumptions, as all mention of man's finite capabilities only reflects on the shortcoming of manmade religion. Why do theists render exempt, all their beliefs from the fallible nature they use to dismiss what they see as science's arrogant presumptions? If a mega-brained boffin can be fooled then certainly an ignorant believer can be. Well, I prefer to reduce the risk of error, science does that.

Assumption 2.

That not everything a person claims is true, we are all susceptible to delusions, we often lie, for many reasons, and any claim need to be verified, before it is taken seriously. No matter how hard they plead, or threaten, or write down in what they claim are holy books from a "higher source" our knowledge of human nature means we need more than their word for it. There're many faiths, all mutually incompatible. Someone is lying that's for sure, and as it could be any one or all of the theists and their prophets. Faith alone is a very unwise thing to rely on.

Assumption 3.

That humanity is, until shown otherwise the most important thing in the universe. I call this the "moral imperative" as it places moral values above all other things, as they alone of all abstract concepts serve life, which is, as far as we know, uniquely precious on this universe. We have seen no conclusive evidence that aliens, gods, angels demons or spirits exist, and thusly humanity is the No.1 priority, all philosophy and science must serve its needs, above any ideology. To assume such things exist before we even start renders all debate on this issue pointless. We must proceed without the presumptions listed here, as only assumptions that serve life are morally excusable.

The reason faith is such a problem, is that is assumes that more important things exist, thusly life's absolute priority is negated. So theists can't be expected to be as morally responsible as those who recognise the moral imperative.

If anyone claims these assumptions of the scientific methods and life's priority are wrong, they will have to explain why, and demonstrate the superiority of their method and prove there is something more intrinsically valuable and important beyond the objective reality of life on this planet. Until they do, no one should question my assumptions, as they are reasonable, humane, and productive. And so far any counter claims are none of those things, as they are anti-reason, thusly unreasonable, focus on gods and other "higher" beings, and are thusly inhumane and unproductive, especially compared to the works of science and progressive thinkers. In other words, I appeal to all those who recognise these things and anyone else can get stuffed. You have nothing worth while to contribute and are incapable of giving me any constructive criticism, which is what I am here to receive, not idle stupid rants from presumptuous theists who are (until liberated) a blight on this planet.

The truth I have found rest on these standards of proof and morality, without them, all I say is meaningless, and if they are wrong, which I think they cannot be, then the universe is for the insane, and not for the likes of me.

If you cannot exempt these things then nothing I say here will be correct to you, and further dialogue is pointless, as you are clearly not living in the real world.

Now, to continue, I never claimed to have all the answers, I know what I wrote. You don't need to know all to disregard the claims made by the world's religions. You are assuming AB, that one needs absolute knowledge to rule out an absolute entity such as your god. Well here's the flaw, I don't have to rule out an absolute concept, as that assumes such a thing exits before we even begin, only rule out the validity of the claims made my religions, which rest on their own internal logic. If they cannot be shown to be consistent and logical within their own understanding of their god-laden universe then they invalidate themselves. Well guess what AB, they all do this. The inconsistencies of the bible have been known since before it was written down, even the most orthodox rabbis acknowledge this, and the NT is a total cock up, I could quote my arse off on this, but this site as some adequate examples. The same applies to all faiths, they are all clearly the work of humans, with no signs of divine inspiration, and that is all is need to regard your "absolutes" as products of the various superstitious cultures that have existed.

You need not explain the projection in itself, when you have traced back it's image to the projector.

You can rule out the ancient religions using exactly the same methods used on all the current ones. Thusy, as the only reason we have for belief in any deity is the claims made by faiths, and as all faiths, their scriptures, doctrines, ruling and dogma are self evidently fraudulent, no more needs to be said.

But what about First Cause etc?

Many theists use a deistic argument to defend their deity, what they don't realise, is that no such arguments, which are purely word games with no substance, are relevant to their cause. What created these gods, and what kept people believing in them, was the religious institutions and holy books. You are either borne into or converted using emotion and psychology, not logic or deistic "reason", which are after rationalisations, defences made to legitimise you theistic decision or status. Your just trying to convince others that although you theism may not be the result of rational consideration, it's Okay, as you religion just happens to be logically sound, what luck.

Tradition, personal experience or crisis, authority, parentage, force, scripture they are the "reasons" for faith, and as they are provably false, beyond any reasonable doubt, only the desperate believer remains to defend their little pet deities. After all, if you can't trust the churches, and the scripture, what is left? The possibility of the existence of a god that you can't disprove? Is that any reason to believe, let alone attend church? I fail to see the connection between the supposed logical, non-impossibility of a deity, and the conning of people into whatever denomination you represent. The arguments in deism is weak stuff, organised religion is nothing, I need more to base my life on, I'll take what I know to be real and important. Not what you give me no reason to think, is more so. Especially as it clearly doesn't do enough "good" to counter the fact that in all probability I'd be living a lie.

Accuse me of arrogance if you like, I am used to it, my regard for truth is such that I refuse to be modest, and this is interpreted as arrogance, but bigotry is fighting talk. My attitude to theism is based on a lifetime of study, I could tell you stories of what I've seen that would have you wetting your y-fronts little man. I am entitled to be against what I consider an abomination by my moral standards, which you have yet to show are not superior to those of the religion you "defend".

As to my clarification on atheism, weak atheism makes no claims whatsoever, strong atheists, the rarer type, do go so far to deny the validity of theistic claims. It doesn't have to offer any counter claims, it's your job to prove your right, not that we're wrong about you being wrong. Whether we simply ignore, dismiss or actively oppose your claims, you're still obligated to offer more than the claim itself. We shouldn't simply be expected to believe you, and we don't have to put up with being insulted when we either wait for proof, or point out your full of it.

We don't buy what you're selling, the price is too high and the product looks funny, find someone else. If you can't understand that religions are making the claims, and atheists are just either ignoring them or demanding better reasons to consider them, then you're obviously ignorant to the most basic nature of your chosen opponents. I shouldn't have to explain this very basic stuff to you, even a beginner apologist knows this.

As for atheist claims that do not refer to religion, well, my non-enslavement to religion means I can think about what the hell I want. I can use any method to find to truth, and my conclusions are to be scrutinised based on my reasoning, logic, and philosophical consistency, not on my atheism. You have a very unhealthy obsession, that blinds you to whatever I, or any other freethinkers may say. My non-beliefs are a product of my philosophy not the other way round, I searched, I found, but not in any church, that fact is reflected in my essays. I can believe in whatever I want, if I choose to believe things that are derived from my reasoning, not what you think I should believe in, then that's my business. What I choose to call belief are assumptions, that I acknowledge, as central to my philosophy, as they are the ideals I choose to serve. That I don't share you're "ideals" does not render mine immutable, no amount of infantile "logic" can make that so.

That non-theistic movements killed lots of people in the 20th century is a fact that has no bearing on whether a secular morality is possible, or whether theistic "morality" is valid. I'm trying to create a philosophy free of ALL the elements that cause human suffering, atheistic, or theistic. Your obsession with atheism means you cannot see it is not about that, or religion, but about the aspects of the human condition that render ideals susceptible to corruption. All ideals lead to self-serving ends that are placed ahead of humanities physical and mental well being, unless a system with selfless ideals, designed to serve, not be served can be fashioned..

AB, I fail to understand your reasoning, surely the fact that both theism and atheism have killed millions, is more important than the numbers. This isn't a competition to see which worldview can kill the least people, and the one with the lowest number is right, and should be defended at all costs. That you clearly care more about who killed more, using very questionable generalisations, means you aren't interested in a better way if it doesn't include your precious beliefs. That is all a secular philosophy means to you, one that excludes your faith. Atheism isn't something in itself destined to hurt humanity, it is humanity that does that, with the help of the wrong kind of tools..

Would my ideas be so wrong if a based them on Hindu philosophy or Muslim beliefs, or pagan ones? I think you're just sticking up for your religion, and you do not have humanity's best interests at heart, not as long as it doesn't include your archaic world view.

As for naturalism, it is a reasonable assumption to make if no supernatural claims have been verified. Most people of a naturalistic tern, come to that conclusion only after careful analysis of such claims It is not presumptuous to rule out what has never been ruled in, not if the reasoning and collaborative evidence is sound. Faith is ultimately all that supports all supernatural concepts, as the seeming evidence requires faith as without it such "proofs" are extremely unconvincing to the sceptical or educated mind.

Lastly the implications of man not being the highest intelligence in the universe are of immense interest to me. But as the only such claims have been based on bibles, that don't display any intelligence higher than the crude superstitions of long dead idiots, the subject remains purely academic. Something I wish you were.

Ed Raymer

Look guys, I wouldn't even bother to include this idiot (atheist baiter)in the exchanges, ignore him totally and when he realizes he's

wasting his time he will move on, he is just static that will finally fade away.

ME

AB is doing me a favour, every time he tries to debunk my ideas, he only gives me a framework in which to further explore my philosophy. With every attack I get stronger, so I welcome his attempts to entertain, it's why I'm here. People who agree with me are never as helpful, as they tend to be less critical, whereas our little AB here points out things which he thinks are weaknesses, assumptions, falsehoods. This gives me the opportunity to expand these elements, and bolster them against further attack. This is natural selection in action, he is my help mate, as are creationists when they attack evolution, as they make debaters and lectures sharpen their tactics, and help scientists better explain their findings to the lay public. All theists will ever be is a strengthening factor to people who are intellectually honest and sincere. This AB is the kind of guy is my assistant, whether he likes it our not, he can only make me stronger. Why do you think I bother with such large responses?

This essay is part of an attempt to create a consistent irreligious philosophy that can demonstrate it's moral superiority to theism. It has to be tested against religious fundys, as it as to be theology proof when its finished. Ethical evolution is one of the main principles guiding the ethical centre of the philosophy, and the Moral Imperative is designed to make it capable of self destruction, rather than inhumane action or ideas, a fail safe I wish religions and ideologies had. I'm all for spiritual life styles, paganism, Buddhism, even most forms of Judaism, however I have to stand against all exclusive faiths, such as Islam, and xtianity, as they are intrinsically designed for hegemony. I wish to attract free-thinkers to these ideas, as I wish to create a definitive set of ethical concepts that I can use to deflect theistic claims of atheistic immorality. I see atheism as a zero stage, from which all virtue and horror can be built. As a result the priority is to create a moral stage immediately after atheism as been achieved, and to build it into a mind set that makes all involved the willing tools of a program designed to benefit everybody, through education, and altruism. Theism needs to be put it its place, and so do all self-serving ideologies. A Humanitarian Charter is the way to go. A definitive reference for ethics, all institutes will be designed to serve it, and it will be designed to serve humanity. This will create a series of movements that will face the right way for a change, to life and not away.

- back 2 essays -

- homepage -