Find all segments of this debate here.
Note that TheAtheistChef engaged in a very typical evolutionist tactic which is to weave a tall tale, to tell a Darwinian story as it had any relevance to facts, as if a story can replace science. In any case, he asserted that “Those that could work cooperatively with other members of their species…survived far better than those that DIDNT work cooperatively.” Yet, that is too simplistic a view and utterly inaccurate. Our history does not, I repeat does not, result in concluding that “Those that could work cooperatively with other members of their species…survived far better than those that DIDNT work cooperatively” but that it was those that could work cooperatively with other members of their own in-group did so be that a clan, tribe, city, state, nation, etc.
In fact, such in-group cooperation lead to one in-group conquering another in-group or rather, an in-group versus an out-group. It was the best at conquering that “survived far better than those that DIDNT work cooperatively” they in-groups cooperated so as to conquer and defeat “those that DIDNT work cooperatively.” The issue is that this is not about in-species cooperation as that would make all of humanity one (unless you still hold to Victorian Era claims of “favored races” with others having evolved later, etc.).
Yet, for me the issue is deeper as even if, and actually especially if, it is accurate that, “We evolved as a social species. We depend on others. Those that could work cooperatively with other members of their species…survived far better than those that DIDNT work cooperatively” why should this be any sort of guiding premise for me and my in-group or even whole species.
For example, Richard Dawkins has repeatedly claimed that when it comes to morality he is an anti-Darwinist because—recall my reference to non sequiturs—just as TheAtheistChef appeals to evolution for us being “a social species” who “depend on others,” etc. Dawkins appeals to evolution as I did, to the other side of evolution which is success via pain, suffering and death: surviving as the fittest by doing away with the less fit, etc.
Why—if and since evolution is blind, random, unguided and goal-less—should we use it as a guide for our lives? Well, maybe evolution stumbled into something useful since even though it is unknown why survival is important to life (coming about, as it must have on this view, by an accidental mutation) it is still a personal preference, an assertion, a baseless premise, etc.
He keeps going along these non sequitur lines with statements such as that “I dont want to suffer, therefore I shouldnt make others suffer.” Well, what I am trying to say is that I could just as easily, and just as evolutionarily, say that I do not want to suffer and I will suffer much less if I take that which others have so as to make my life easier or I do not want to suffer because I know how unpleasant it is and this gives me a clue as to how to manipulate others: if I make them suffer then they will bow to me (or fight me to survive as the fittest, etc.).
You see, if we are merely animals then the strategic choice that one animal makes is just as valid as strategic choice that another animal makes and if one does not survive due to their strategic choice then so be it—die now, die later, die when the Sun explodes, or when the universe ends: someday absolutely nothing will matter in the least bit.
Next, I had pointed out TheAtheistChef’s contradictory statements as he “claim[ed] that you can’t impose today’s understanding on a past civilization but you do exactly that…” He then merely asserts, and this is key, that he has “EVERY justification to speak out against it” but he does not provide us EVERY nor even one single justification. This is why I had asked him about whether he condemns logical fallacies: for the same reason that he ultimately condemns anything: it is an emotive reaction and not justified upon an absolute premise.
Yet, on one level I agree as he wrote that, note carefully, “if” and that is a big “IF,” “a book is saying that an ultimately moral being is doing these evil things, while claiming to be only good…” but he is not only employing the terms “moral,” “evil” and “good” without a definition or absolute premise but the “book” (actually 66 books written by 40 authors: a volume) is stating no such thing.
Note that he had “already agreed that killing other people in the name of religion isnt right” but anyone can say anything: the issue is can he justify his statement via appeal to anything more than an assertion which is piled upon another and another ad infinitum?
Moreover, why is it that “killing other people in the name of religion isnt right” but killing them in the name of his view of societal health of the world as a whole is right? I would imagine that in extreme cases “If we have people that are trying to ruin societal health, they should be dealt with…” could include capital punishment / the death penalty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.