IGX

Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to encourage the avoidance of biological hazard, maintenance of mutually beneficial social practices, and ensure the orderly process of healthy reproduction?

These fucking hairless apes are starting to catch on...

My current thinking on atheism is best summed up by Lee Child's character "Jack Reacher" in one of his recent novels (I think it was "Nothing To Lose")

"We're all atheists. You don't believe in a thousand gods, why does it bother you if I don't believe in a thousand and one?"

buckethead wrote:Excellent book by Frans de Waal

Guy's in his later years, and has been studying apes forever. Makes a case that morality is as bred into us as anything else, not something dictated from above or something we have to learn.

Christians have only been saying that for nineteen centuries or so.

Turdacious wrote:

buckethead wrote:Excellent book by Frans de Waal

Guy's in his later years, and has been studying apes forever. Makes a case that morality is as bred into us as anything else, not something dictated from above or something we have to learn.

Christians have only been saying that for nineteen centuries or so.

That's obviously. Don't know how i missed it.

buckethead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

buckethead wrote:Excellent book by Frans de Waal

Guy's in his later years, and has been studying apes forever. Makes a case that morality is as bred into us as anything else, not something dictated from above or something we have to learn.

Christians have only been saying that for nineteen centuries or so.

That's obviously. Don't know how i missed it.

It's part of our nature to a certain extent, and requires guidance for the rest-- that's always been the core Christian argument. 10-1 de Waal doesn't understand that.

Turdacious wrote:

buckethead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

buckethead wrote:Excellent book by Frans de Waal

Guy's in his later years, and has been studying apes forever. Makes a case that morality is as bred into us as anything else, not something dictated from above or something we have to learn.

Christians have only been saying that for nineteen centuries or so.

That's obviously. Don't know how i missed it.

It's part of our nature to a certain extent, and requires guidance for the rest-- that's always been the core Christian argument. 10-1 de Waal doesn't understand that.

I'll give you the same odds he does not understand so called atheist "dogma" either. Sounds like an interesting book. Thanks for the rec. just snagged a copy.

Y'all are so fucking brilliant. Here's an author who grew up in a devout family but doesn't understand Christianity as well as Turd. And a guy who has publicly debated (on the same "side") with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins but supposedly doesn't understand neo-atheist dogma. How boring a life it must be never able to learn something new or challenge your views.

Maybe I'm wrong...I'll read it the book and see.

As long as we're on the subject of belief, I believe you're being a bit of a cunt.

An nobody knows more than St. Turd re: all things papist.

buckethead wrote:Y'all are so fucking brilliant. Here's an author who grew up in a devout family but doesn't understand Christianity as well as Turd. And a guy who has publicly debated (on the same "side") with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins but supposedly doesn't understand neo-atheist dogma. How boring a life it must be never able to learn something new or challenge your views.

I like Hitchens, and Hitch would have eaten this guy for breakfast. Look up the correlation=causation fallacy sometime. The stretch from monkey to man is pretty significant. Besides, doesn't the scientific approach require that you be honest about the argument you're refuting? Not like the origins of moral behavior aren't something that has been studies in depth for centuries or anything...

Bonobos aren't monkeys

buckethead wrote:Bonobos aren't monkeys

Fair enough, we all know that monkeys can't be trusted. Case and point:


But my point still holds, there's a lot of extrapolation over a long period of time in his theory.

This presumes you know what his "theory" is

buckethead wrote:This presumes you know what his "theory" is

I'm familiar with his 'veneer theory' which I'm assuming this is developed from. He falls into the trap of using a simplistic misunderstanding of classical Christianity's view on sin and morals to mask the holes in his variation of the 'state of nature' theory.

My lord, you had 12 hours to research this and that's what you came up with? And you got it wrong.

You should have stopped with your such-good-friends-i-called-him-Hitch post.

buckethead wrote:My lord, you had 12 hours to research this and that's what you came up with? And you got it wrong.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it on that.

buckethead wrote:You should have stopped with your such-good-friends-i-called-him-Hitch post.

You're really reaching.

Hint: "veneer theory" is not his, and the authors of said theory were evolutionary biologists not theologians, so i'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

Just read the book, or don't. Not sure why you find it irresistible to be a know-it-all.

buckethead wrote:Hint: "veneer theory" is not his, and the authors of said theory were evolutionary biologists not theologians, so i'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

Just read the book, or don't. Not sure why you find it irresistible to be a know-it-all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneer_theory
Fair enough.