Seat of consciousness perhaps found in the brain:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Humans are not as complex as you would like to believe. Sure, complex as hell, but not on a supernatural level. Just a chemical engine that we are getting to know more and more about as time goes by.

There has even been found in a region of the brain where if you zap it with a pulsed magnetic field of a certain pulse recurrence frequency and strength, i ...[text shortened]... tities. All thanks to those mere chemicals flying around inside your and everyone else's brain.

Humans are not as complex as you would like to believe. Sure, complex as hell, but not on a supernatural level. Just a chemical engine that we are getting to know more and more about as time goes by.

To be consistant with your worldview then you should conclude that murder and rape are not really wrong but only genetically determined, with all behavior.

Then it follows that murder or rape are not really wrong by any universal moral standard.

When the gay man Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death and left hanging on a fence by two men who lured him away with deception to rob and kill him, was that really wrong ? Or was that just a chemical reaction that was not evil in any objective sense ?

James Rachel is the author of a book called Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. I am told that Rachel there defends the Darwinian view that the human species is of no more inherent value than any other species of animal.

James Rachel writes concerning people who are mentally retarded -

"What are we to say about them? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering [Darwinism], would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude that they may be used as non-human animals are used - perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food."

[ James Rachel, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism, Oxford University Press, 1990. pg.186]

Here you have an Evolutionist arguing for using mentally retarded people as laboratory rats or as food. This is similar to the Nazi medical experiments. Darwinists cannot condemn such a philosophy if there is no objective moral standard, but only chemical reactions producing behavarior.

Originally posted by jaywill
James Rachel is the author of a book called [b]Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. I am told that Rachel there defends the Darwinian view that the human species is of no more inherent value than any other species of animal.

James Rachel writes concerning people who are mentally retarded -

[quote] "What are we to say about t ...[text shortened]... phy if there is no objective moral standard, but only chemical reactions producing behavarior.[/b]

Have you read any summaries or reviews of this work or anything about this author? From a biography at Amazon's page for the book:

"He has given reasons for moral vegetarianism and animal rights, for affirmative action (including quotas), for the humanitarian use of euthanasia, and for the idea that parents owe as much moral consideration to other people's children as they do to their own."

So it appears that the opposite of what you say is true about his moral stance.

Originally posted by jaywill

What did you think it was? Floating consciousness somewhere outside your body?

I'll take that as a "yes" - there are no moral sentiments except chemicals interacting. There is then no objective standard of right and wrong.

Do you know the chemical composition of a murder molecule ?
Do you know the weight of a hate molecule or th ...[text shortened]... evil to slaughter 6,000,000 Jews ? Was it not really evil, but only a bad chemical reaction ?

morality is a mixture of learnt behavior and our genetic make-up. if morality existed 'outside' of the human body and mind then it would not be effected by what our bodies experience. if you were born of good morality you would always have good morals.
it has been proven that people's morals are fluid not static. we adapt to fit in to the society we live in (this applies to the majority not everybody). this is why we have a range of morality depending on which country you live, which part of the country, which city, which part of the city.
i child who is sexually abused is much more likely to become an abuser themselves. this is because their experiences have effected their cognitive behavior. it is disgusting to claim that they were born with bad morals.
during war morality changes. men become killers, some men with 'good' morals will commit horrendous crimes because the trauma of war effects the way we think.
during the yugoslavian conflict in the 90's neighbors who had been friends turned on each other because the way they thought had been changed because of fear.
look at the famous stanford prison experiment, it showed how people adapt their behavior to fit into their new social grouping, look how the morals of some nice middle class students changed within a few hours/days.


using the word 'evil' to describe somebody is a cop-out. its a simplistic way of saying somebody has done something very bad. just calling hitler 'evil' doesnt help understand how he got to be they way he was and what motivated him, because science has taken the time to study people like him we know how people end up like hitler and we can treat people who show they have behavior and mental illness.

Originally posted by jaywill

Humans are not as complex as you would like to believe. Sure, complex as hell, but not on a supernatural level. Just a chemical engine that we are getting to know more and more about as time goes by.

To be consistant with your worldview then you should conclude that murder and rape are not really wrong but only genetically determined, wi ...[text shortened]... t really wrong ? Or was that just a chemical reaction that was not evil in any objective sense ?

"Then it follows that murder or rape are not really wrong by any universal moral standard."


this is a ludicrous statement. you are basically saying that a society with out god telling them what morals to have, has no morals at all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I doubt if we humans were around 10,000 years ago. But the early humans must have learned their morality from Adam and Eve.

Was that Adam and Eve before or after they got kicked out of the garden? And what about the other people you admitted were there along with A&E?

So you are saying men are superior to women's moral sense since Eve ate the apple of knowledge and therefore lost her moral sense she had before that?

You think A&E had perfect moral sense before that happened?

You figure Adam was ticked off at Eve for getting them both kicked out of the garden?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"Then it follows that murder or rape are not really wrong by any universal moral standard."


this is a ludicrous statement. you are basically saying that a society with out god telling them what morals to have, has no morals at all.

If you are a complete naturalist and hold that all behavior is only a matter of genetics, chemistry, and the interaction of material entities such as molecules and atoms, that carries with it some accompanying implications. That belief carries with it some baggage as by-products.

The total materialist has to come to grips with those implications. And they are not ludicrous.

A transcendent supernatural Designer can design into man's being moral law whether or not He provides it as verbal instructions, written commands, or just an intuitive realization. The inner moral law can exist in man regardless if he is a theist or not because he is simply created that way with a component transcending the material universe.

Then there is an actual good and evil which is transcendent in existence.

What we have in sonhouse's belief is that there is only interaction of chemicals detected in the brain which invent moral sentiments. That is akin to saying that we notice in the brain certain areas where neurons fire off when we do mathematics. So 2 + 2 = 4 is not really mathematically true according to any transcendent law of mathematical logic. We don't know then if 2 +2 =4 is true according to the math law. We only know that the neurons and chemicals fireing off in the grey matter of our brains invents 2 + 2 = 4.

Similarly, we do not know if rape is really wrong by any moral law above man. We see chemical reactions in the material and think rape is only evil because of chemical interactions inventing it that way in the material brain.

It is not ludicrous to follow the implication to its conclusion. It is the baggage that you accept as a price for wanting to render a trancendent Law Giver out of the picture in favor of soley material phenomenon. This is the price tag that comes along with your longing to rid the universe of a transcendent Legislator.

This is your by-product. Accept it. You wanted it.

Not only so, but in this worldview REASON itself is impossible. For if mental processess are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true. Even the very theory of materialism as well as theism as well as Darwinism as well as atheism is really not known to be true truth. Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a belief or theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they merely react.

Originally posted by jaywill
James Rachel is the author of a book called [b]Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. I am told that Rachel there defends the Darwinian view that the human species is of no more inherent value than any other species of animal.

James Rachel writes concerning people who are mentally retarded -

[quote] "What are we to say about t ...[text shortened]... phy if there is no objective moral standard, but only chemical reactions producing behavarior.[/b]

I googled this quote and strangely enough, it is found only on/in Christian websites/books [like Geisler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]. There is not one link to the original work.

Originally posted by JS357
Have you read any summaries or reviews of this work or anything about this author? From a biography at Amazon's page for the book:

"He has given reasons for moral vegetarianism and animal rights, for affirmative action (including quotas), for the humanitarian use of euthanasia, and for the idea that parents owe as much moral consideration to other people's ...[text shortened]... eir own."

So it appears that the opposite of what you say is true about his moral stance.

So it appears that the opposite of what you say is true about his moral stance.

I quoted the book. That was not my invented summary of his ideas. That was the man's own stated concept.

So you have to take it at face value. Mentally retarded people could be used as food for the rest of us who are not retarded. And they could conceivably be used for experiments in the laboratory as one would use, say, animals, with no regard for how the animals felt about it.

His words. Not my spin on his words.

"What are we to say about them? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering [Darwinism], would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude that they may be used as non-human animals are used - perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food."

If I find that the quote is out of context I will admit that it is taken out of context. That is "IF".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I googled this quote and strangely enough, it is found only on/in Christian websites/books [like Geisler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]. There is not one link to the original work.

Okay. I'll put a question mark on the use of the quote. A question mark is only a reminder to research that quotation in its context.

Since you refered to "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Giesler and Turek, you may know that they go on to discuss [edit] Peter Singer of Princeton. Now Singer I have heard discussed in secular settings outside of Christian concerns - on the TV News. Do not ask me to remember the exact time or program.

Have you heard that this Peter Singer is contraversial and not that with only Christians ? Have you heard that Peter Singer's ideas are contraversial ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I googled this quote and strangely enough, it is found only on/in Christian websites/books [like Geisler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]. There is not one link to the original work.

...but all is not lost; Mr. Rachels' book is available for free in scanned [pdf] form. Chapter 5, page 186 is illuminating. Mr. Rachels is discussing the implications of the view that humans are in a special moral category above animals, because they are rational, autonomous agents.

There is still another problem for this form of qualified speciesism. Some unfortunate humans-perhaps because they have suffered brain damage-are not rational agents. What are we to say about them? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering, would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude that they may be used as non-human animals are used-perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food?

Notice that the word Darwinism, as bracketed in by Geisler, is not the 'doctrine we are considering' after all. Beware of bracketed-in words!

So Geisler quote-mined and lied and jay and the other apologists should learn to be a bit more skeptical of their sources.

Read it here:
http://www.jamesrachels.org/CFA.htm

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay. I'll put a question mark on the use of the quote. A question mark is only a reminder to research that quotation in its context.

Since you refered to [b]"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Giesler and Turek, you may know that they go on to discuss [edit] Peter Singer of Princeton. Now Singer I have heard discussed in secular setting ...[text shortened]... ot that with only Christians ? Have you heard that Peter Singer's ideas are contraversial ?[/b]

Yes, I have read a bit of Singer's work.

The 'controversial' label doesn't bother me. Such writing can be very interesting if the author makes a good case for challenging traditional, or currently accepted, viewpoints.

There is still another problem for this form of qualified speciesism. Some unfortunate humans-perhaps because they have suffered brain damage-are not rational agents. What are we to say about them? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering, would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude that they may be used as non-human animals are used-perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food?

Speciesism? What the hell is that?

Originally posted by jaywill
If you are a complete naturalist and hold that all behavior is only a matter of genetics, chemistry, and the interaction of material entities such as molecules and atoms, that carries with it some accompanying implications. That belief carries with it some baggage as by-products.

The total materialist has to come to grips with those implications. And the ...[text shortened]... hether or not a belief or theory is [b]true. Chemicals don't reason, they merely react.[/b]

"A transcendent supernatural Designer can design into man's being moral law whether or not He provides it as verbal instructions, written commands, or just an intuitive realization. The inner moral law can exist in man regardless if he is a theist or not because he is simply created that way with a component transcending the material universe."

if this is so and out morals were designed into us by god, why do our morals change so much? why can a person have one set of morals then after a bang on the head have a completely different set of morals. ive just been listening to a radio documentary about how the american army have been worried so much about the change in behavior from troops returning from combat, especially in the arena of domestic violence and after several wives were killed in the space of a few weeks the american army have become pioneers in investment into fixing soldiers mental problems.
its stupid and naive to suggest people are simply good or evil. what are you suggesting? that people are born evil?
how do you define evil? if somebody has brain damage and commits murders because of the voice in their head are they evil?
if a person is abused all their life and grows up to be twisted are they evil?


"Similarly, we do not know if rape is really wrong by any moral law above man. We see chemical reactions in the material and think rape is only evil because of chemical interactions inventing it that way in the material brain. "


thats right there is no moral law above humanities. over time our morals have changed, there are things that are not accepted now that were okay 50yrs ago 100yrs ago 1000yrs ago. humanities morals have become more refined and liberal of these times. if you god theory was correct then our morals would be fixed.
we now correctly think rape is a terrible crime, it hasnt always been the case. armies during wars will often loose sight of this and resort to rape as a punishment, what has happened to the soldiers morals?

to me its like you are ignoring all of the science, sociological, psychological studies that have been done in the last hundred years. morality can be measured, it can been seen in brain scans, we have studied its development in babies through to adults. weve studied how it changes, as ive mentioned in war, prisons, social groups, within families.

if morality is in us, why can our morals change so much?


"Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a belief or theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they merely react.[/b]"

it seems you are now suggesting all thought and decision making happens out side of the brain? is this what you think? if so, what do you think the purpose of the brain is?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is still another problem for this form of qualified speciesism. Some unfortunate humans-perhaps because they have suffered brain damage-are not rational agents. What are we to say about them? The natural conclusion, according to the doctrine we are considering, would be that their status is that of mere animals. And perhaps we should go on to conclude ...[text shortened]... imals are used-perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food?

Speciesism? What the hell is that?

My interpretation is speciesism = prejudice favoring one species over other(s).