Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[Danmark]

...I'd like your opinion of the thought experiment I drafted wherein the hypothetical creator god was either amoral, or simply a 'might makes right' god who let his creatures figure things out on their own...

To me, the god-concept(s) you propose are incoherent. God cannot be amoral or indifferent, for this would necessitate some arbitrary limitation within "God" (with respect to God's causal efficacy or God's ability to handle and process information). And if arbitrary limitations apply to "God," then such "God" cannot be the source and fount of all possibility (i.e., if the limitations were arbitrary, then there would need to be possibilities other than those which find their source in God).

In order for God to be a God who creates, God must be intrinsically, inherently, eternally dynamic and relational and other regarding--and for this to be the case, creative freedom must coinhere with other-regarding love. An amoral or indifferent "God" is a contradiction in terms.

...I don't understand making a distinction between theists and non re: where they are on the free will/determinist continuum. I don't see any reason why a non theist is any less likely to '...consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives.'...I don't believe random chance operates with any more force depending on whether or not one is a theist. In either case the actor has the illusion of choice, if not in fact a choice...

Since I believe we do in fact have genuine subjective agency, I agree that we have genuine subjective agency regardless of whether we believe we have it or not, and regardless of whether we believe it to be actual or illusory. My point is merely that in order for the non-theist to cogently claim "moral superiority," the non-theist must allow that objective moral standards do exist, and that genuine subjective agency does exist. But to admit such things is to pull the rug out from under the non-theist's own feet.

...natural selection favored the groups and individuals who became team players...

You are describing a scenario where what is deemed "right" is tied to "whatever confers pragmatic advantage." In this case, I don't see how the non-theists' "morality" is any better than that of the theist who, per your stipulation, performs "moral behavior" only for the sake of some supposed pragmatic advantage (and of course I do not actually accept that stipulation).

Why does our hypothetical 'god' have to follow your description about his nature or qualities? I realize there are more and less sophisticated versions of 'god.' Along with (I think) you I reject the 'god who is mere being' and favor the idea (if there is a god at all) of a god who is 'the very ground of being.' [Tillich's phrase] as we have previously discussed.

But if god is not less than personal, why can't he have (just as we do) both creative and destructive elements. I realize it is just a myth, but the 'god' of genesis repented of and destroyed his creation, save for Noah.

And the god I proposed is not necessarily a Lucifer type, who creates just to destroy and cause misery. He could be a creative god, who then, like the Deist says, sat back to watch, never to intervene.

The non theist may quite rightfully say, "I don't know if these standards are 'objective' according to a professor of philosophy, but the vast majority agrees on them and they make sense to me, so I go along and adopt the standards as 'standard.'

BTW, whether 'objective' or not, I am intrigued by deWaal's view on or studies about animal 'morality. Interesting stuff, as is this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5 ... -morality/
Worth a look if only to see a cute baby. I'm sure you will agree he looks like a future atheist.

[stubbornone]

From Post 139:

I would call this rank hypocrisy.

Call it what you will, my concern is how the observer considers it all.

I asked you for genetic evidence, indeed pointed to the human genome project, and asked for a explanation of how the genetic evidence that we check, which indicates little support to your theory ... well, why is your theory viable at all then? Where we expect to find evidence ... its not there.

As I said, I feel no need to educate you here.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered a rebuttal, with supporting documentation, and feel confident the observer's gonna think I'm closer to it than you....

I missed that the first time you posted it Joey. I don't know if you mentioned the 'Scientific American' article in their 10/05/2011 issue:
Morality is often considered to be the domain of philosophers, not biologists. But scientists have often wondered what role our genomes play in directing our moral compass. Today, a paper was published in the open access journal PLoS ONE which found moral decision making was influenced by different forms of a single gene.
logs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/05/a-moral-gene/

A few weeks ago there was a '60 minutes' segment that surprised the researches at what a young age, way before speech, babies seem to make moral judgments. I didn't look for a cite or site, but someone here may be familiar with it.

Scientists have wondered ... 60 minutes pointing out that babies seem to know morality (certainly not from watching their parents - egads).

What I do not see is any actual listing of genetic evidence for a gentic claim. Instead, I see the same thing Dakwins dis, which is the highlighting of behavior that supposed a preconception, and ignoring that which does not.

Anyone who has ever seen a child through a temper tantrum would have to take the behavior of babies as moral insight with a grain of salt.

So, once again, having now been lectured by several atheists about how logic works, I would appreciate an actual argument rather than mere supposition ... that someone else may be familiar with.

[EduChris]

...Why does our hypothetical 'god' have to follow your description about his nature or qualities?...

We can only think according to the dictates of logical possibility. If it is true that a genuine contradiction is logically impossible, then we cannot profitably discuss or ruminate about a God of logical contradictions. And we don't need to do any such thing--at least not so long as the discussion can continue along the lines of simplicity, explanatory scope, general congruence with other scholarly findings, and internal coherence.

...why can't he have (just as we do) both creative and destructive elements...

If God had no arbitrary limitations in the capacity to handle and process information, and if God had no arbitrary limitations in causal efficacy, then God would always know what would cause needless harm, and God would always be able to prevent needless harm. Deliberately choosing to create or allow needless harm is as good a definition of evil as we can find. And the existence of an evil God would invalidate any confidence in our own ability to pursue any sort of truth or logic. That which undermines the very foundation of logic constitutes a logical contradiction, and we simply do not have the capacity to conceive that a logical contradiction can actually occur.

...the 'god' of genesis repented of and destroyed his creation, save for Noah...

The question here would be, "Did God's actions involve needless harm--harm that in the grand scheme of things needn't have occurred in order to realized sufficiently compensatory good?" Unless we have a definitive answer to that question, which would involve our knowledge of what ultimately happened to the people involved, we cannot answer that question.

...And the god I proposed is not necessarily a Lucifer type, who creates just to destroy and cause misery. He could be a creative god, who then, like the Deist says, sat back to watch, never to intervene...

One of the ways we can determine whether or not some state of affairs is "necessary" is the blind test--would the one responsible for the state of affairs willingly risk himself or herself in order to achieve the ultimate benefit? If God were to initiate a state of affairs that involved the possibility or the risk of suffering, in order to bring about some desirable state of affairs that could not possibly be achieved in any other way, then such God would not be able to remain indifferent or aloof. Instead, this God would need to fully partake of the suffering alongside of God's suffering creatures. In my view, this is the unique advantage that Christianity offers, over and above the god-concepts found in other religions. God in Jesus is willing to pay the price of suffering, to partake in suffering alongside of us, so that we can have hope that our suffering will not have the last and final word.

...The non theist may quite rightfully say, "I don't know if these standards are 'objective' according to a professor of philosophy, but the vast majority agrees on them and they make sense to me, so I go along and adopt the standards as 'standard.'...

The non-theist has no choice but to say, "I know good and well that this 'standard' cannot possibly be objective, but I'm going to adhere to it anyway, given that I am a material object which cannot possibly do otherwise."

[stubbornone]

From Post 143:

Well, there you have it, the demonstration of the mastery of genetic evidence by providing none whatsoever.

Let's look at what got us here, from my Post 131...

I isolated the statement I sought to get at...

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

And I responded...

That depends on what you mean by "moral gene". Does the gene need to act in a moral fashion, or does the gene's expression result in a more moral individual. Upon who's moral authority are we to determine such things? I contend that as we look at humans, a clearly social species (with expected outliers), we should expect being prosocial to be, if I may, the "highest form of morality". With that in mind...

I explained what at least I considered to be a "moral gene", and offered support that there was indeed such a "moral gene", by referencing the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To which stubbornone responded...

When YOU are claiming that there is a genetic basis for morality, YOU can explain how it works.

The human genome has been mapped, and provides no clues as to how your thesis might operate.
...

It is my contention that by defining what I consider to be a "moral gene", and then by linking to folks who are saying, "and there it sits", my work is done.

I should not be beholden to explain "I contend there is one, and here it sits" is sufficient for me to say "I contend there is one, and here it sits".

Stubbornone offers nothing by way of refutation, other than for me to explain what the stuff is I've presented to him.

I am not a teacher, I'm not qualified to teach in any reputable school on this planet.

I can't help folks don't understand what I say, or what the sources I present in support say.

When there's an actual challenge to a given claim I or my sources present, I'll be glad to offer such, or I'll plow it under like I had to do the last old lady that left me, and I miss her, but I ain't having no old lady of mine doing her own thinking.

As I said, I feel confident the observer will think I'm closer to supporting my contention when I say, "I consider a 'moral gene' to be 'this', and don't it beat all, the folks at the National Academy of Science seem to agree".

Post reported.

I don't blame ya for it, as I think you just simply don't understand the data being presented to you.

In the mean time, THERE IS NO MORAL GENE.

I remind the observer that by bigulating a claim, that claim must for now, and for all time to come, be considered accurate.

That is indeed a problem for those claiming a genetic and evolutionary origin for morality.

While I contend it's a bigger problem for those who don't understand the data.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the phrase 'moral gene' while claiming that others don;t understand how genes work is highly ... insulting, and barely ignores even the most simple rules of logic.

I place the double quotaters 'cause double quotaters mean someone actually said it, or I use single quotaters to indicate some sorta emphasis or uncommon definition. As you only speak of "quotation marks", I can't tell which applies here, but feel confident you can sort it out without it getting you too much more upset than ya already are.

Indeed, things that HAVE A GENETIC OR EVOLUTIONARY base HAVE genetic origins that are demonstrable, from the simple, cystic fibrosis, a single genetic marker which is testable, to the complex, like our vulnerability to .. alcoholism.

As I contend the National Academy of Sciences has done.

What we do not have is any sort of genetic marker that indicates that we are more or less likely to be moral people. Indeed, if we DID have that, we would be able to screen for it wouldn't we Joey?

Not necessarily, considering some folks'll just say such as, "Your data offends me, and I'm offended you'd have the temerity to present it".

Or, other factors such as nurture or even other genetic conditions come into play.

We do have sociopaths, but even sociopaths, with a clear genetic predisposition to ignore morality, can CHOOSE to be moral - belying you thesis entirely.

A sociopath, by definition, ain't one until he presents with certain (here undefined) immoral behaviors. Until then he's a "potential sociopath".

With 'pologies for the quotaters there, for those such use gets 'em upset.

But heh, you claimed arrogantly that I don't know what I am talking about whereas you .. with such a cogent argument OBVIOUSLY understand the science?

Actually, I said that I'm far too handsome to waste my time on arrogance.

What I will contend, and I present our exchange as evidence, that you declaring there are - forgive me here - "no moral genes", even if you bigulate it when you do, is no reason for us to conclude you've got it right.

I believe its been clarified several times.

If you are claiming a genetic basis of morality ... then there should be a 'genetic morality gene' - or even a series of genes that provably leads to morality.

Only we have things like sociopaths, who are genetically pre-disposioned to violence ... who are not violent.

We also have this:

"After a delay of three years, the trial of his murderer, a 29-year-old white, Tony Mobeley, took place last February. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Many at the district attorney's office cannot recall ever having to deal with anyone quite like Mobeley. According to Lee Parks, assistant district attorney in Hall County, Mobeley took to decorating his cell with Domino pizza boxes, bragged to fellow inmates about the killing and carried a one-two domino piece (the Domino logo) as a "good luck charm". Mobeley even had dominoes tattooed across the back of one of his shoulders, says Parks.

But what appears to be pretty much an open and shut case - even Mobeley has never denied his guilt - has been catapaulted on to the battlefield of a fierce worldwide debate. For Mobeley, in an effort to mitigate his sentence to life, claims that his genes made him kill the 21-year-old Collins. He is arguing that he has inherited a genetic condition that makes it difficult for him to control violent, impulsive behaviour and wants to have a scientific test to prove it. So far the request for state funds to have the test has been denied. A final decision by the state supreme court is imminent.

To back up their calls, Mobeley and his lawyers have exploited to the full a remarkable study carried out by a team of scientists on a large Dutch family in which several males are said to be affected by borderline mental retardation and abnormal behaviour including marked criminal activity. The scientists claim to have identified a defective gene that normally regulates the production of chemicals that play a vital role in the transmission through the body of electrical impulses or messages associated with aggressive behaviour.

The judge in Mobeley's case did not argue with the findings but noted the researchers' warning that the results applied to just one family and should not be extended to society in general. But as a foretaste of the huge legal problems should genetic predisposition data ever become widely admissable, the judge pointed out that even if the test was allowed and the results supported Mobeley's claims, mechanisms do not exist to deal with such evidence."

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26

We have the same problems with this claim as we do with atheist claims of sexuality being genetically controlled. Even with the pro-offered family, there are certainly members that DO NOT engage in violent activity, and are indeed not in jail on death row for murder. Indeed, there is HUGE potential for bias in this case, and the life of a man is at stake, with a huge potential bias in findings ... even if they find said gene, which is tied to violence not morality, is found ... the differing effects on family STILL have to be discovered and weighed.

In the meantime, the fact is that courts, and indeed the larger human population and our systems of jurosprudence ALL HOLD INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE for their actions.

In short, atheists on this thread are attempting to basically bury free will, individualism and consequences ... in short, the decisions we make are not our own, but merely the result of random combinations of DNA, in which our morality and choices have already been made for us.

Well, good luck with that ... especially for those who are claiming that slavery is a bad thing ... even if it is to your genes, eh?

[micatala]

However, now we have the opportunity to get rid of religion once and for all as more and more people are capable of using logic, reason and common sense instead of belief.

Wow....Very deep words. And of course this will better your life and countless of people....Knowing that ....This is all there is?

Because what the logic in being alive and learning.....If you're just going to die?

Many people are actually happy just being alive and learning. Having a finite time here on this wonderful planet makes life all the more precious. It is a shame to have all that knowledge just disappear, but then maybe on my deathbed I'll look on the bright side and be content about all the time I spent day dreaming instead of learning to conjugate verbs.

Very sad....I thank God everyday for making himself known to me. I know when I die, what I experienced will be used for my next lesson in life.

How someone can live believing that this is all there is....You really have to be brainwashing yourself.

Oh the irony and the projection!

First you admit to a daily brain washing technique, then you project your own brainwashing and claim others must be doing it.

Moderator Comment


I would ask both clownboat and Tex to avoid accusations of brainwashing. They are personal and not particularly productive. Address the argument, not your perception of how the person making the argument came to that point of view.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 153:

I believe its been clarified several times.

If you are claiming a genetic basis of morality ... then there should be a 'genetic morality gene' - or even a series of genes that provably leads to morality.
...

I offered the data that supports my contention, that you reject it out of hand with nothing more'n a "nah-ah" indicates to me you've not read my source.

Beyond that, I've previously accepted the notion that other factors, such as environment, nurture, or even other genetic components may come into play. This does nothing to refute the findings of my source.

We also have this:

"After a delay of three years, the trial of his murderer, a 29-year-old white, Tony Mobeley, took place last February. He was found guilty and sentenced to death...

...For Mobeley, in an effort to mitigate his sentence to life, claims that his genes made him kill the 21-year-old Collins. He is arguing that he has inherited a genetic condition that makes it difficult for him to control violent, impulsive behaviour and wants to have a scientific test to prove it. So far the request for state funds to have the test has been denied. A final decision by the state supreme court is imminent.

Stephen Anthony Mobely? That was from the next county over. I call it "Hell" County, but I don't mean 'em the least harm, I just find it amusing.

Never got the test. His sentence was carried out.

That a test is not performed should not lead us to conclude it would've shown either one of us have it right.

To back up their calls, Mobeley and his lawyers have exploited to the full a remarkable study carried out by a team of scientists on a large Dutch family in which several males are said to be affected by borderline mental retardation and abnormal behaviour including marked criminal activity. The scientists claim to have identified a defective gene that normally regulates the production of chemicals that play a vital role in the transmission through the body of electrical impulses or messages associated with aggressive behaviour.

The judge in Mobeley's case did not argue with the findings...

Lacking presentation of this data, I'm more inclined to say it supports my previous source, so far as they also seem to have found a genetic component. Before you object here, please note my point is predicated on my source, and you've done nothing to refute it specifically.

...but noted the researchers' warning that the results applied to just one family and should not be extended to society in general.

I'm totally with that. There is more to "all this" than just genetics. That said, I contend that my source offers rebuttal to your statement that there is no genetic component.

But as a foretaste of the huge legal problems should genetic predisposition data ever become widely admissable, the judge pointed out that even if the test was allowed and the results supported Mobeley's claims, mechanisms do not exist to deal with such evidence."

Argument from consequences. If we let 'em all go, or punish 'em all, that alone says little about there they sit with it.

I would propose that such a condition should be considered when punishment is dealt.

"So you're predisposed to killing your mom by beating her about the head? I sentence you to death, with the demand that you're fed an extra cookie a day 'til ya get there."

We have the same problems with this claim as we do with atheist claims of sexuality being genetically controlled.

I'm not such to make that case overtly, but will contend that when it comes to homosexuals having the same rights as everybody else, they should.

Even with the pro-offered family, there are certainly members that DO NOT engage in violent activity, and are indeed not in jail on death row for murder. Indeed, there is HUGE potential for bias in this case, and the life of a man is at stake, with a huge potential bias in findings ... even if they find said gene, which is tied to violence not morality, is found ... the differing effects on family STILL have to be discovered and weighed.

And therein lies the rub...

Where one commits violence you can say such as "that has nothing to do with morals". I presented what I contend is a "moral", and pointed to a paper that supports my contention of a genetic component.

You offered no objection to my definition, and the only objection you offered for my source is a dismissal with nothing more'n incredulity for it.

In the meantime, the fact is that courts, and indeed the larger human population and our systems of jurosprudence ALL HOLD INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE for their actions.

See my position on an argument from consequences above.

In short, atheists on this thread are attempting to basically bury free will...

Where have you established we have free will?

...individualism...

I'm uncertain how this relates to the findings of my source.

...and consequences...

See above where I mention about seeing above what I think of an argument from consequences.

My source indicates the consequence of having a certain genetic component indicates we'll find that'n to be more pro-social.

in short, the decisions we make are not our own, but merely the result of random combinations of DNA, in which our morality and choices have already been made for us.

I wouldn't so much say "already made for us" as I would "looky there, folks with this particular section of genetic material are bound to be more pro-social".

Well, good luck with that ... especially for those who are claiming that slavery is a bad thing ... even if it is to your genes, eh?

Do you lament not having you a slave?

I know a chick over in Homer that just loves that kinda stuff. Would you like that I give her your number?

[Danmark]

...Why does our hypothetical 'god' have to follow your description about his nature or qualities?...

We can only think according to the dictates of logical possibility. If it is true that a genuine contradiction is logically impossible, then we cannot profitably discuss or ruminate about a God of logical contradictions. And we don't need to do any such thing--at least not so long as the discussion can continue along the lines of simplicity, explanatory scope, general congruence with other scholarly findings, and internal coherence.

...why can't he have (just as we do) both creative and destructive elements...

If God had no arbitrary limitations in the capacity to handle and process information, and if God had no arbitrary limitations in causal efficacy, then God would always know what would cause needless harm, and God would always be able to prevent needless harm. Deliberately choosing to create or allow needless harm is as good a definition of evil as we can find. And the existence of an evil God would invalidate any confidence in our own ability to pursue any sort of truth or logic. That which undermines the very foundation of logic constitutes a logical contradiction, and we simply do not have the capacity to conceive that a logical contradiction can actually occur.

...the 'god' of genesis repented of and destroyed his creation, save for Noah...

The question here would be, "Did God's actions involve needless harm--harm that in the grand scheme of things needn't have occurred in order to realized sufficiently compensatory good?" Unless we have a definitive answer to that question, which would involve our knowledge of what ultimately happened to the people involved, we cannot answer that question.

...And the god I proposed is not necessarily a Lucifer type, who creates just to destroy and cause misery. He could be a creative god, who then, like the Deist says, sat back to watch, never to intervene...

One of the ways we can determine whether or not some state of affairs is "necessary" is the blind test--would the one responsible for the state of affairs willingly risk himself or herself in order to achieve the ultimate benefit? If God were to initiate a state of affairs that involved the possibility or the risk of suffering, in order to bring about some desirable state of affairs that could not possibly be achieved in any other way, then such God would not be able to remain indifferent or aloof. Instead, this God would need to fully partake of the suffering alongside of God's suffering creatures. In my view, this is the unique advantage that Christianity offers, over and above the god-concepts found in other religions. God in Jesus is willing to pay the price of suffering, to partake in suffering alongside of us, so that we can have hope that our suffering will not have the last and final word.

...The non theist may quite rightfully say, "I don't know if these standards are 'objective' according to a professor of philosophy, but the vast majority agrees on them and they make sense to me, so I go along and adopt the standards as 'standard.'...

The non-theist has no choice but to say, "I know good and well that this 'standard' cannot possibly be objective, but I'm going to adhere to it anyway, given that I am a material object which cannot possibly do otherwise."

Your various points remind me of a book I was acquainted with maybe 50 years ago, by JB Phillips. I think he also translated the NT, one of the earlier modern English NT translations available in the 60's.
The title was Your God is too Small. Can't even remember if I read it, but it was talked about quite a bit in my youth. The concept stuck with me. Who are we to put limits on God? God is beyond definition. Compared to God, the third grader's notion of him may be no more accurate than that of one who fancies himself a theological sophisticate. You postulate some givens about God. What is your authority?

The very argument about only God being able to give objective standards of morality can be disputed, because in essence that argument says, only God determines what is good. God = good. I have seen no reason whatsoever to accept that proposition.

We know there is pain and suffering in this world that we cannot account for. We may suppose it is necessary or it fulfills some greater purpose, but we do not know. It is just as reasonable to suppose that god is evil by MY standards, or by those of most civilized people, as it is to suppose that he is good. Many of us simply reject the idea of an all powerful god who is also good. There is both logic and evidence to support such a supposition.

I haven't heard or read anything that should force anyone by sheer logic to agree that god is good by the standards we have evolved to basically agree upon.

God may very well have created the world for his own purposes, and to suppose that he is looking at things from our point of view is absurd.

God may not have even created the world, much less the universe. He may simply be the most powerful entity extant. Or there may be no such being, or 'ground of being.'

Essentially, all the arguments seam somewhat pointless to me since we may be arguing about something that is beyond definition. I don't find anything written by C.S. Lewis, for example, or anyone else, to be of any help on these issues.

If you have an author you suggest can explain this, let me know. But it seems to me that it all comes down to a matter of personal faith and that faith is largely based on a will to believe.

The only will to believe that I have is the will to believe the truth, not what is convenient or comfortable for me.

[stubbornone]

From Post 153:

I believe its been clarified several times.

If you are claiming a genetic basis of morality ... then there should be a 'genetic morality gene' - or even a series of genes that provably leads to morality.
...

I offered the data that supports my contention, that you reject it out of hand with nothing more'n a "nah-ah" indicates to me you've not read my source.

Beyond that, I've previously accepted the notion that other factors, such as environment, nurture, or even other genetic components may come into play. This does nothing to refute the findings of my source.

We also have this:

"After a delay of three years, the trial of his murderer, a 29-year-old white, Tony Mobeley, took place last February. He was found guilty and sentenced to death...

...For Mobeley, in an effort to mitigate his sentence to life, claims that his genes made him kill the 21-year-old Collins. He is arguing that he has inherited a genetic condition that makes it difficult for him to control violent, impulsive behaviour and wants to have a scientific test to prove it. So far the request for state funds to have the test has been denied. A final decision by the state supreme court is imminent.

Stephen Anthony Mobely? That was from the next county over. I call it "Hell" County, but I don't mean 'em the least harm, I just find it amusing.

Never got the test. His sentence was carried out.

That a test is not performed should not lead us to conclude it would've shown either one of us have it right.

To back up their calls, Mobeley and his lawyers have exploited to the full a remarkable study carried out by a team of scientists on a large Dutch family in which several males are said to be affected by borderline mental retardation and abnormal behaviour including marked criminal activity. The scientists claim to have identified a defective gene that normally regulates the production of chemicals that play a vital role in the transmission through the body of electrical impulses or messages associated with aggressive behaviour.

The judge in Mobeley's case did not argue with the findings...

Lacking presentation of this data, I'm more inclined to say it supports my previous source, so far as they also seem to have found a genetic component. Before you object here, please note my point is predicated on my source, and you've done nothing to refute it specifically.

...but noted the researchers' warning that the results applied to just one family and should not be extended to society in general.

I'm totally with that. There is more to "all this" than just genetics. That said, I contend that my source offers rebuttal to your statement that there is no genetic component.

But as a foretaste of the huge legal problems should genetic predisposition data ever become widely admissable, the judge pointed out that even if the test was allowed and the results supported Mobeley's claims, mechanisms do not exist to deal with such evidence."

Argument from consequences. If we let 'em all go, or punish 'em all, that alone says little about there they sit with it.

I would propose that such a condition should be considered when punishment is dealt.

"So you're predisposed to killing your mom by beating her about the head? I sentence you to death, with the demand that you're fed an extra cookie a day 'til ya get there."

We have the same problems with this claim as we do with atheist claims of sexuality being genetically controlled.

I'm not such to make that case overtly, but will contend that when it comes to homosexuals having the same rights as everybody else, they should.

Even with the pro-offered family, there are certainly members that DO NOT engage in violent activity, and are indeed not in jail on death row for murder. Indeed, there is HUGE potential for bias in this case, and the life of a man is at stake, with a huge potential bias in findings ... even if they find said gene, which is tied to violence not morality, is found ... the differing effects on family STILL have to be discovered and weighed.

And therein lies the rub...

Where one commits violence you can say such as "that has nothing to do with morals". I presented what I contend is a "moral", and pointed to a paper that supports my contention of a genetic component.

You offered no objection to my definition, and the only objection you offered for my source is a dismissal with nothing more'n incredulity for it.

In the meantime, the fact is that courts, and indeed the larger human population and our systems of jurosprudence ALL HOLD INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE for their actions.

See my position on an argument from consequences above.

In short, atheists on this thread are attempting to basically bury free will...

Where have you established we have free will?

...individualism...

I'm uncertain how this relates to the findings of my source.

...and consequences...

See above where I mention about seeing above what I think of an argument from consequences.

My source indicates the consequence of having a certain genetic component indicates we'll find that'n to be more pro-social.

in short, the decisions we make are not our own, but merely the result of random combinations of DNA, in which our morality and choices have already been made for us.

I wouldn't so much say "already made for us" as I would "looky there, folks with this particular section of genetic material are bound to be more pro-social".

Well, good luck with that ... especially for those who are claiming that slavery is a bad thing ... even if it is to your genes, eh?

Do you lament not having you a slave?

I know a chick over in Homer that just loves that kinda stuff. Would you like that I give her your number?

#1 - you are still missing the basis of my claim while claiming that I am not addressing your sources?

Either someone claiming that morality is based in geneticism has to support such a claim with genetic evidence or not.

Its a simple enough contention, and one you are not apparently even bothering to counter - your thesis is that apparently genetic claims do NOT require genetic evidence?

Are you really stating that Joey?

#2 - DNA does NOT go away. The family in question can indeed be tested at any time. And if found ... and the point you dodged with several examples now is:

a. What happens you if you have said gene ... but are not violent?

Indeed, only one such person from the family apparently went to such lengthy means to highlight his violent nature ... and that indicates a choice to do so ... not a genetic predisposition. Indeed, the family members who ARE NOT on deth row and yet have the gene ... what do we say of them?

What do we say to sociopaths who CHOOSE not to be violent?

Once again, we cannot simply ignore evidence when it confronts us with difficult questions.

[stubbornone]

Indeed, on the larger question, and a rebuttal to this COMMON CLAIM of atheists ... from another former atheist. Goes directly to the supposed evidence being presented by atheists.

"How Do Atheists Determine Morality?
“Some say there is no objective morality. When told that a certain individual believed that morality is a sham, Samuel Johnson responded, ‘Why sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves’."
Atheists bristle at the suggestion that a-theism equates to a-morality. Yet the “Paradox of the Honest Atheist� clearly illustrates the paradoxical dilemma that the Atheist position produces with respect to morality, including all self-derived ethics.

Because the Atheist mind is the “source of all truth�, morality is determined by each individual Atheist mind. So there will be as many moralities as there are Atheists… creating a chaotic amalgam of contradictions (Godel Type 2 (b) Paradoxes) under a single banner.

Or perhaps the Atheist co-opts an existing morality, while rejecting the source of that morality. This would be an intellectually compromising position. Yet I co-opted the Judeo-Christian ethic myself, as did many others also, ignoring the intellectual dishonesty such a position entails. This is a common state of existence for many Atheists: ignore the contradictions and live inside the paradox.

Chapman Cohen [(1868-1954) third president of the National Secular Society, Britain's largest Atheist organization] wrote in “Morality Without God�:
“The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its sphere of application and operation is in this world; its authority is derived from the common sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of corporate life.�
And,
“Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution.�
So according to Cohen, the moral feeling came first, then evolved into rules. But just as Darwin refused to address First Life and the origin of the mind, so Cohen does not address the origin of the “moral feeling�, which might be called conscience. And Cohen’s model does not refute that separate populations might develop antithetical codes for their “morality�. His model simply states that for evolutionary success, people learned to get along by doing mutually compatible things. Or at least not getting bashed.

But is the concept of “If you touch my wife, I’ll bash you!� really a moral precept? From the offender’s view point there are two possible points of perception:

(a) I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;

(b) I shouldn’t touch his wife because it is wrong.

The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone. The second is conscience based, and works under all conditions. Is it likely that (a) will evolve into (b)? No, because evolutionary theory demands the perpetuation of one’s own genetics over all other activities. Perception (a) is the only possible result of the theory of evolution. The concept of “wrongness� could not have evolved, under the definition of survival of the fittest. Just as the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution, so it falsifies Cohen’s evolutionary theory of morality, “Evolving Morality� is seen to be another evolutionary crutch for propping up Atheism.

But the most damage to Cohen’s “Evolving Morality� is done by asking who benefits from ethics and morality. It is not the fittest, the strongest. And it is not enough to say that the entire group benefits, because the benefit is not equally realized. It is the weakest, the least fit who benefit the most and are protected from the stronger and more fit. This is directly counter to Darwinist evolution."

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... heism.html

In short, the mechanisms of genetic change that atheists claim simply do not work ... papers to the contrary cannot undermine the rules of logic.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 157:

#1 - you are still missing the basis of my claim while claiming that I am not addressing your sources?

I accept the charge as a matter of I'm a doofus, though don't see where I've missed anything. "No moral gene" seems pretty straightforward to me (given previously presented qualifiers).

Either someone claiming that morality is based in geneticism has to support such a claim with genetic evidence or not.

"Geneticism" or not, I presented my definition, and my source. You have yet to directly address the data my source presents, other'n to just ostensibly say "nah-ah".

I made my claim, I offered my source. Will you address the data within my source, or will you continue to argue a rather tangential position?

Its a simple enough contention, and one you are not apparently even bothering to counter - your thesis is that apparently genetic claims do NOT require genetic evidence?

I presented a link to my evidence, in the form of a report by the National Academy of Sciences. That you continue to argue anything but the data within that report indicates to me you've either not read it, or just don't understand it.

I contend I have held to the rules of this site, and the (if undefined) rules of honorable debate. I'm fully prepared to support my source, and fully prepared to retract, but until you actually address or challenge my source, I contend you've done nothing to show my source is in error.

Why do you reject my source? For what data from within my referenced source do wish to raise an objection? What is it about my source, or the data within, that causes you concern?

Until I know your objection, beyond "nah-ah", I have no means of knowing how to explain, or support the data, and hence conclusions, my source presents.

Are you really stating that Joey?

#2 - DNA does NOT go away. The family in question can indeed be tested at any time. And if found ... and the point you dodged with several examples now is:

The "family in question" seems to be a reference to a source of your own. I will not now argue that data, but will reserve the right to do so.

a. What happens you if you have said gene ... but are not violent?

Indeed, only one such person from the family apparently went to such lengthy means to highlight his violent nature ... and that indicates a choice to do so ... not a genetic predisposition. Indeed, the family members who ARE NOT on deth row and yet have the gene ... what do we say of them?

I fully accept that your source should lead us to conclude your source couldn't find a "moral gene".

Such a condition says nothing about my source.

If I'm too drunk to find the kitchen, does that mean it ain't there?

What do we say to sociopaths who CHOOSE not to be violent?

'Preciate it?

Once again, we cannot simply ignore evidence when it confronts us with difficult questions.

Then why do you ignore my source?

I'm fully prepared to have this debate, but if you only wanna deal with your source, where I'm willing to concede your source fails to support whatever it fails to support, then I propose the observer is perfectly reasoned in concluding it is you who's doing the "ignoring evidence" here.


I will not further entertain arguments based on your source, at least where you and I both agree your source fails.


What I will do is defend my contention, and my source. That is if you actually can attempt to refute the National Academy of Sciences.