tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post8221794436201504440..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open Thread for Episode 700Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73846223123697985112011-03-20T08:35:09.255-05:002011-03-20T08:35:09.255-05:00Jobs? The AE staff and hosts should be funded by ...Jobs? The AE staff and hosts should be funded by the state as public philosophers. Now if we can just derive the IS from the Ought.....zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89896518992420746092011-03-20T08:12:59.834-05:002011-03-20T08:12:59.834-05:00Matt, at least, have been busy (I think a friend&#...Matt, at least, have been busy (I think a friend's wedding, IIRC). The others presumably have their stuff. Even with many contributors sometimes schedules just clash and no one is around. I'm sure they'll update some more when they have the time. <br /><br />Look at the bright side, <a href="http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/" rel="nofollow">the non-prophets</a> are back. There was just an unscheduled bonus episode with AronRa and Ashley Paramore from the Secular Student Alliance.<br /><br />Listen to that for your fix.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45174191871207556152011-03-19T13:58:11.243-05:002011-03-19T13:58:11.243-05:00@ J.
-They usually update it everyday or every ot...@ J.<br /><br />-They usually update it everyday or every other day at the least. It's a little uncommon for them not to have posted anything new this week, but they must be busy with their lives as you said. You know...things like jobs.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10621351554711420662011-03-19T10:21:26.467-05:002011-03-19T10:21:26.467-05:00After watching the episode, I'm now very curio...After watching the episode, I'm now very curious; what exactly has been the problem with the CGI thing?ianmathwiz7https://www.blogger.com/profile/10861609029093929357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44216427703815629052011-03-19T04:39:29.321-05:002011-03-19T04:39:29.321-05:00I hate to complain, but you guys really should upd...I hate to complain, but you guys really should update the blog more often. It has the readership. I know everyone is busy with real life and such, but it's been well over a week since the last post of any substance, and there's like, what, 5 contributors?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07933463519834595445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37830693943914862582011-03-18T21:50:40.082-05:002011-03-18T21:50:40.082-05:00@ Michael
-lol I understand what you're sayin...@ Michael<br /><br />-lol I understand what you're saying, I have all along. I realize that you were referring to the caller at first....and I agree with your argument in most aspects.(And we agreed to this) I simply disagree with your opinion that morality hasn't "evolved" for lack of a better word in the last few thousand years. No one here is saying that we live in a perfect utopia because we have evolved morally. That's why I specifically mentioned that some societies and countries are lagging behind, or are even regressing into older ideologies and immoral behavior. So your point of, "Well only the developed countries have "evolved" morally, but not the middle east, China, third world countries, etc... I get it, but I would still argue that despite genocidal events and other horrific times, we still correct ourselves and learn from them. With all the atrocities and crime that happen in the world everyday, it isn't nearly as bad as it was 2000 years ago, it's absurd to say that we haven't progressed in certain areas in that time-span. Yes, naturally in today's world, with the population exponentially greater than 2000 years ago, there is still bad things that happen( because there is a shit ton more people), especially in the undeveloped and poverty countries. But we have made progress in most places in the world, no matter how minuscule you happen to think that progress is or how immoral certain countries laws and beliefs still are. So you can sit there and point out all the things that you find immoral and wrong that happen in the world still, but this doesn't translate to no progress at all. I'm not saying that bad events won't happen anymore, regression still happens and history repeats itself. But that doesn't mean we haven't made progress. You're simply pointing out all the bad things that still happen, and ignoring all the good things that happen in the world, then saying "Nope, there are still bad things that happen in the world like rape and genocide, therefore we haven't made any progress whatsoever."...I beg to differ.<br /><br />-Consider this my last post to this discussion because I'm tired of explaining my opinion. I probably won't even look into this thread anymore so that I don't become tempted to respond if you happen to make another post. Good conversation though. Peace.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38432141301597263702011-03-18T20:22:11.961-05:002011-03-18T20:22:11.961-05:00@Mamba24
"lol I was just looking through the...@Mamba24<br /><br />"lol I was just looking through the older posts and came across that comment and remembered what your response to me was and thought it was a little dishonest"<br /><br />You're accusing me of being dishonest, when you repeatedly left out why I made my original post in the first place. The caller was specifically referring to biological evolution. I stated that I understood that you were not referring to biological evolution when you said morality evolved. However, I was specifically arguing against the callers opinions on biological evolution. <br /><br />Now I admit, in more than one of my earlier posts, I hadn’t yet realize that you didn't realize I was attacking the callers position. In a way, you walked in on the middle of a conversation. And like a bad host, I didn't back up and fully explain what we were talking about. For this I apologize. But please stop inferring that I don't know the difference between biological and non-biological evolution. <br /><br />In a sense, we were having two different conversations. One was my argument against the caller and a second was my dislike of using the word evolution for describing how morality developed in society. If you look at the word evolution in the thesaurus, you’ll find the words, development, fruition, growth, progress, progression and advancement. I can think of more than a few examples where regression, weakening, deterioration, degeneration better describe what’s happening.<br /><br />So how do you measure progress? If you did it by world population, then the larger portion of worlds morality is in decline. Look at Mexico. How many drug related deaths have there been in recent history. Africa (multiple nations) anarchy, genocide, mass rapes are daily events. The Middle East; it doesn’t hit the news as often, but the bombings are still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan is a ticking time bomb. Israel, Palestine and Iran – not getting better. How about China or North Korea? So where is this evolving, morality you speak of? Is it Europe, Canada and maybe the United States? All combined, that’s still less than 1/6 the world population.<br /><br />There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet. Do you really think it’s going to get better? We are running out of room and resources. Let’s see what morality evolves into out of food shortages and over-crowding. Academic liberals might have "evolved" a superior morality, but the word hasn’t gotten to the rest of the world yet.<br /><br />Sorry for the agressive tone of this last post.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21402101630205205322011-03-18T19:27:28.320-05:002011-03-18T19:27:28.320-05:00Michael said.."I didn’t like the use of the w...Michael said.."I didn’t like the use of the word evolution in respect to non-biological changes, because the analog breaks down when you try to draw additional comparisons. I might add that all the confusion about who meant what regarding this now ridiculous conversation proves my point."<br /><br />-Okay well that's your opinion I guess. I personally have no problem with people using the term for non-biological purposes because I DON"T let it affect me or confuse me. I understand how evolution works, whether biologically through natural selection, or by some other process. And I think everyone else shares this opinion with me as well, so your "point" is basically irrelevant to us. It's only relevant to those who agree with you that it's confusing. In the end it doesn't matter, evolution has a definition(change over time), and Biological Evolution by N.S. is a certain type of that definition.<br /><br />Michael said.."A little while ago, you and I were in agreement that human biological evolution reached its current state between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Social "evolution", made possible by our biological evolution and the advent of language about 50,000 years ago, led to an explosion of social development."<br /><br />-Yeah I'm still in agreement with that. lol I was just looking through the older posts and came across that comment and remembered what your response to me was and thought it was a little dishonest. But yeah we can drop this.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28243334341171687272011-03-18T18:53:25.874-05:002011-03-18T18:53:25.874-05:00@Mamba24
I’m not sure why we are going back to th...@Mamba24<br /><br />I’m not sure why we are going back to this, but I’ll explain myself again. BEFORE I made any posts whatsoever, a caller on Sundays show suggested that because morality was part of evolution that it would be permissible for us to kill off the weaker and/or unproductive members of our society. He specifically referenced biological evolution. I was responding to HIM.<br /> <br />I understand that the rest of you were not referring to the evolution in the biological sense. But the caller was. In response to your posts, I added that I didn’t like the use of the word evolution in respect to non-biological changes, because the analog breaks down when you try to draw additional comparisons. I might add that all the confusion about who meant what regarding this now ridiculous conversation proves my point.<br /><br />A little while ago, you and I were in agreement that human biological evolution reached its current state between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Social "evolution", made possible by our biological evolution and the advent of language about 50,000 years ago, led to an explosion of social development.<br /><br />Now can we please drop this?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83440087726759383462011-03-18T17:12:27.587-05:002011-03-18T17:12:27.587-05:00I said.."When someone says that a certain thi...I said.."When someone says that a certain thing or idea has "evolved", they aren't necessarily talking about biological evolution. Michael seems to think that if someone uses this term, then they must be arguing for biological evolution"<br /><br />Michael responded.."I didn't purpose this, the first caller on Sunday's show did. I was responding to their comments."<br /><br />Actually you did propose this, here is the evidence... <br /><br />Michael said.."Evolution is specifically in reference to natural selection, genetic drift and mutations in living organisms." <br /><br />-No it's not. What you are talking about is Biological evolution by means of natural selection. There is a difference between the general term of evolution. (Change over time), and B. Evolution by N.S.(Genetic mutations, genetic drift, etc..) That's what the other guys were trying to point out to you. When someone says that something has "evolved", they're not saying that natural selection was involved.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46387287223536950382011-03-18T16:00:51.513-05:002011-03-18T16:00:51.513-05:00Indeed you're right. It's a combination of...Indeed you're right. It's a combination of lagging behind for the most part, then the occasional atrocious genocides that can take place in even somewhat developed countries. Bosnia is a good example. Humans aren't perfect, and in times of strive and struggle, it comes down to one simple goal...survival. When times are extremely tough, it can only take one tip of the domino and everything can turn into chaos. Kill or be killed. The rules no longer apply if you want to survive. This is just a fundamental fact of nature. No matter how morally developed a society becomes, mass death and struggle are always within reach.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40077028826248916322011-03-18T15:26:14.250-05:002011-03-18T15:26:14.250-05:00The Babylonia example was meant as a culture which...The Babylonia example was meant as a culture which at one time was progressive thinking, which has since been turned into almost backward thinking.<br /><br />Rwandan and Darfur fits your third world examples, but what about Bosnia? Now you're talking modern Western European and look at the horrors that were committed there.<br /><br />We aren't talking about lagging behind. We're talking about leaping backwards by centuries. Centuries of social development wiped out in a heartbeat. I believe the estimates were as high as 60,000 rapes, not to mention the genocide. We're talking true horror show here.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11674609961392562782011-03-18T15:02:36.134-05:002011-03-18T15:02:36.134-05:00Certainly there is regression in the world culture...Certainly there is regression in the world cultures, but you have to be careful at labeling them. Was the kind of science in Babylonia what we have today?...no. Art, literature, philosophy isn't science. But you are correct about this point, we see it all through history when looking at the rise and fall of world empires. The Romans and Greeks were architectural masterminds. Yes they were also more advanced than other areas of the world when it came to mathematics and literature, and some forms of science... But when the empire fell, so did all the gains in knowledge and skillful craft that came with it.<br /><br />However, just because a society is advanced in science and architecture....doesn't mean that they are a morally advanced society. Slavery was still a large part of life with the Greeks and Romans. Heretics who proposed different ideas that may have been true, yet were unpopular with the masses and status-quo...were burned alive or tortured. If you look at the bigger picture of moral values in the past 2500 years, they have improved considerably. Is there still places in the world that hold irrational beliefs that influence immoral actions and behavior?...You best believe there are. But as civilizations grew and expanded around the world, and our knowledge of the universe and world got better, so did our moral codes. Yes the third world countries and ultra religious are still lagging behind. Some countries seem to be regressing into past values and beliefs that may in fact be more harmful, you could make a case that America is doing this in some ways, or at least has people who are pushing these ideas to support their religious or personal agendas. That's why education is the most important value for our country right now, even more so than scientific research. You can do all the research and make all the important discoveries, but if the people aren't educated to understand those discoveries, or they're taught "what" to think instead "how" to think, then it holds us back as a society. I got a little off topic but my personal opinion is that our moral codes have gotten significantly better over the years, at least in the developed countries that aren't ruled by extremist theocratic authoritarian governments.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21355723234262274182011-03-18T14:20:32.610-05:002011-03-18T14:20:32.610-05:00Yay! We're reached a consensus. Now how do w...Yay! We're reached a consensus. Now how do we fit regressive cultures into the "evolving" morality model?<br /><br />The Middle East, for example, was once the center of scientific and cultural development in ancient Babylonia. They excelled at art, architecture, astronomy, medicine, mathematics, literature and philosophy. Now look at what Islam has done to it. <br /><br />Even in the United States, the rise of conservatism is a regression to the good old-fashion values of yesterday. Though I think most minorities would question just how good they were.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25245462624048750942011-03-18T12:04:03.995-05:002011-03-18T12:04:03.995-05:00@ Michael
Yeah I agree with pretty much everythin...@ Michael<br /><br />Yeah I agree with pretty much everything you said. And you basically agreed with my point as well..<br /><br />-"I think it's safe to say that our capacity for moral judgment evolved along with the rest of our brain over 100,000 years ago at the very least."-<br /><br />This was my whole point, evolution gave us the "capacity" to have moral and social structure in civilized societies. Out of all the human ancestors and relatives like neanderthals, Cro-magnon, etc...It was the modern Homo-Sapiens that developed into civilized species. There was something about our intellectual capacity and creativity that allowed us to dominate the other species and successfully expand. Biological evolution, by natural selection, picked us to survive and reproduce. Has it had a major role in the last 10,000 years? Probably not. Humans morality is "evolving" all the time however(not through natural selection), sometimes in small gradual steps, other times in big leaps. That was my point, that we have secular morality because we have the brains that allow us to do so, but how did we arrive to attain these kind of brains?....Evolution by means of natural selection. So thank Biological evolution for your brain, now go create your moral code using this brain.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80917335475352350152011-03-18T11:24:53.752-05:002011-03-18T11:24:53.752-05:00Looks like Yahweh likes himself some shin-shi shin...Looks like Yahweh likes himself some shin-shi shin-shi. Kinda surprised me that prude is usually pretty reserved in sexual matters.<br /><br />For those not in the know:<br />http://www.hulu.com/watch/4135/saturday-night-live-patio-loversJAFisher44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09894511085072464057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37800579670390809752011-03-18T09:11:00.192-05:002011-03-18T09:11:00.192-05:00@Mamba24
@Tosspotovich
I think it's safe to s...@Mamba24<br />@Tosspotovich<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that our capacity for moral judgement evolved along with the rest of our brain over 100,000 years ago at the very least. But the values we developed over time are the product of our environment. What was morally permissible thousands of years ago would be considered barbaric today. Since genetically we haven't changed in well over 100,000 years, I don't think you can look to human evolution for the answer. <br /><br />The fact that even today, humans are capable of extreme acts of barbarism, strongly suggest that we haven't physically evolved as more moral creatures than our barbaric ancestors, but only socially "evolved" beyond them. Tear down civilization and lets see how moral we all behave. What moral judgements will you make when you're forced to fight for food and shelter?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78841013140622246992011-03-18T08:16:46.810-05:002011-03-18T08:16:46.810-05:00@ Tosspotovich
"I can see why you're sen...@ Tosspotovich<br /><br />"I can see why you're sensitive to the conflation of biological evolution with other forms but the people posting here seem to have more intellectual integrity than that."<br /><br />I don't know how to interpret this. Should I be insulted? :)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78511541424936049242011-03-18T07:51:26.290-05:002011-03-18T07:51:26.290-05:00@azzure,
it reminds me of the Family Guy when Meg...@azzure, <br />it reminds me of the Family Guy when Meg does the purity ring thing and her boyfriend does her in the ear.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15358471265547323333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70406358839818225032011-03-18T07:46:51.228-05:002011-03-18T07:46:51.228-05:00@ Tosspotovich
"Argument from ignorance. If ...@ Tosspotovich<br /><br />"Argument from ignorance. If you can't show how something occured it does not follow that it didn't occur the way I say it did."<br /><br />I didn't say I didn't know how it occurred. I believe it's a product of reasoning and social interaction. Just like you're not going to find a gene that specifies that blue is my favorite color, I don't believe we will find a moral gene. I believe our intellect allows for us to say, do, feel, believe, love, hate, fear, etc, etc far beyond what our genes dictate.<br /><br />I do believe we evolved as social creatures. The advent of morals goes beyond normal social interaction. Alpha males in other species would have no problem mating with whatever fertile female they get their paws on. We as a moral society raised the age of consent consistently over the years. Evolutionarily speaking we haven't changed much in the last 100,000 years, but socially we changed a lot. 50,000 years ago, I doubt any man would have any problem mating with a 12-13 year old girl. Part of that was life expectancy, part of it was social normalcy. <br /><br />So if we haven't physically evolved much in the last 100,000 years, but we've socially changed a great deal, I wonder what could have caused our moral development? <br /><br />I'm being nice and saying 50,000-100,000 years. It's probably closer to 250,000 years. That's along time of nearly zero evolutionary changes and massive social changes.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50847690827805486142011-03-18T07:20:00.753-05:002011-03-18T07:20:00.753-05:00@Mamba24
"When someone says that a certain t...@Mamba24<br /><br />"When someone says that a certain thing or idea has "evolved", they aren't necessarily talking about biological evolution. Michael seems to think that if someone uses this term, then they must be arguing for biological evolution"<br /><br />I didn't purpose this, the first caller on Sunday's show did. I was responding to their comments.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188301414823411487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32154435281179691232011-03-17T21:36:38.469-05:002011-03-17T21:36:38.469-05:00A good example of evolution driving increased soci...A good example of evolution driving increased social behavior and structure is when our ancient ancestors millions of years ago started moving from the treetops into the open savannahs and grasslands. Food would have been harder to come by in the open country and as a result, our apelike ancestors(who at the time would be starting to walk on two legs) would have worked "together" to achieve a desired end....To get food. This is just a primitive example, but it illustrates that small physical and environmental changes that speed up evolution, could drive a species to develop better social skills and interactions in order to have a better chance of survival.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84937966244640006232011-03-17T20:09:35.564-05:002011-03-17T20:09:35.564-05:00@michael
"If I were to say, human secular mo...@michael<br /><br /><strong>"If I were to say, human secular morality evolved and you asked me how, there goes my analogy. I can't say they were passed down by reproduction. I can't say morals were subject to genetic drift or mutation."</strong><br /><br />Argument from ignorance. If you can't show how something occured it does not follow that it didn't occur the way I say it did.<br /><br /><strong>"I can't say they changed so much over time that speciation occurred and the new morals can no longer mate with the old morals."</strong><br /><br />Composition fallacy. Traits don't mate.<br /><br />I can see why you're sensitive to the conflation of biological evolution with other forms but the people posting here seem to have more intellectual integrity than that.tosspotovichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17962970629478468587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87040272366492509092011-03-17T20:01:50.526-05:002011-03-17T20:01:50.526-05:00When someone says that a certain thing or idea has...When someone says that a certain thing or idea has "evolved", they aren't necessarily talking about biological evolution. Michael seems to think that if someone uses this term, then they must be arguing for biological evolution. But it simply means change over time, usually resulting in better ideas or products or whatever it is you're talking about. That's why scientists and textbook definitions are careful to say "Biological evolution by means of natural selection". Just because something has evolved, doesn't mean that natural selection was apart of the process.<br /><br />As for secular morality, biological evolution is involved, maybe not directly, but if our brains hadn't evolved to have our current size/capacity, then we wouldn't be as intelligent or creative, and we would still be living in trees and Savannah lands instead of civilized societies and cities. We wouldn't have the developed areas of the brain that are responsible for emotional feelings like empathy/sympathy. It is because of evolution that we have the brains we do, and because of this our species have learned to live together in the world today in civilized manners.(For the most part anyway) We have developed moral codes and ethics systems that have also evolved over the millenia....because we have the brains to do so.....because of biological evolution by natural selection.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82546093638264719312011-03-17T19:24:06.408-05:002011-03-17T19:24:06.408-05:00@Michael
You seem to be hung up on the word evolu...@Michael<br /><br />You seem to be hung up on the word evolution. Biological evolution does not have a monopoly on that term. Yes, I agree that biology is usually implied, but the term evolution also has a place in math, chemistry, cosmology, etc. and is perfectly valid there. Also, it would appear that you don't think biological evolution had any part in morality. You said, "Natural selection, genetic drift and mutations played no part in secular morality." From my understanding, what secular morality is based on, logic, reason, empathy etc., are direct results or our evolution. I may be misunderstanding you though, so please let me know.<br /><br />As for analogies, I don't see anyone saying they offer a one for one comparison. They are a tool, and I would argue a useful tool. To quote Dudley Field Malone, "One good analogy is worth three hours discussion."<br /><br />On a totally different note, my favorite line in this episode.<br /><br /><i>if you're seeing what I am seeing, then I am covered with colored bars.</i> -RussellMAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.com