Thought Experiment

Thats because they are specifically programmed a mind to overcome the laws of physics. Unlike human brains which as all atheists claim has no programmer.
How exactly are computers 'overcoming' the laws of physics? My point is that they are not. Regardless of how they came to be made or programmed, it is possible for mere matter operating purely in accordance with the laws of physics to perform calculations which also reliably follow the laws of mathematics and logic. Do you accept this much?

Your claim that computers can only do this because they are created by other minds would at best show that purely physical human minds could only reason reliably without violating physics if they were in turn designed by another intelligent being. I would dispute this point too, but please note that this is a very different claim from the one I was addressing, which was that purely physical human minds could not reason at all without violating the laws of physics. (IOW, could we please return the goalposts to where they started?)
 
Thats because they are specifically programmed a mind to overcome the laws of physics. Unlike human brains which as all atheists claim has no programmer.
If you could demonstrate a law of physics broken by a computer, there would be a Nobel prize in it for you. Seriously. It would be a huge breakthrough.

Computers are pretty much creatures of physics and math.
 
So far you have asserted that the mind violates the laws of chemistry because rhetorical logic is not chemistry. You may as well be saying that a rainbow and the orbit of Saturn violate the laws of chemistry as well. Nobody thinks that the mind is reducible to the law of mass reaction, although it's activities must indeed be somehow circumscribed by such a law, as well as by the laws of thermodynamics. See above in my reference to neural architecture: the brain is more akin to a digital computer than a reaction flask.
How could it be more akin to a digital computer than a reaction flask? Remember as an atheist there is no designer or programmer. Evolution is an impersonal undirected process and your brain is a product of that according to atheists. So it is more likely that it has much more in common with a reaction flask than a digital computer.
 
How could it be more akin to a digital computer than a reaction flask? Remember as an atheist there is no designer or programmer. Evolution is an impersonal undirected process and your brain is a product of that according to atheists. So it is more likely that it has much more in common with a reaction flask than a digital computer.
Because the brain stores and retrieves experiences/information and accesses them when like experiences are triggered so it can look ahead to delay or suppress certain immediate reactions to stimulus if it knows they have in the past lead to trouble. Think about a programmed chess game. Taking an opponents piece when offered to the computer may be tempting because the object of the games simple - take their pieces to weaken their position and increase the odds of capturing their king.... but the computer doesn’t take every piece offered. It calculates consequences and thinks ahead based on experience. It’s just that in the case of the computer, the complex paths of experience are programmed in. We do that too, by reading chess books, and playing, and storing the experiences for later retrieval.
 
Last edited:
None of that implies that we ought not act like ants or other animals.
Given that not all animals act alike, there is no a priori reason that any species OUGHT to act exactly the same as any other. See below.
Well some humans justify their behavior by comparing it to animals. For example, homosexuals justify their behavior by saying that since animals engage in homosexual behavior then it is natural for humans to engage in it. So are you saying that they are wrong about that?
You are just stating what some humans and ants do, not what they ought to do.
Right. So if animals act in one way, there is no ought that humans should act the same way. So humans act in human ways, and simply because ants might do something is not a reason to say that humans ought, or ought not, do the same thing. You are saying "Animals do X. Nazis do X. Why is it OK for animals and not Nazis, if humans are just a sort of animal?". And my answer is "Because humans are not other animals: just as every animal species has its own way of acting, so do we."

Note: this does not answer the question of the functional basis of our behavior, nor its origin. But what it does do is tell you why, even if humans are simply a clever sort of animal, we can expect ourselves to have our own rules distinct from those of other animals: because every animal species has rules distinct from those of all other animals. Our position is not anomalous in that regard.
Where did these rules come from and why should we abide by them? How did they become oughts?
 
How could it be more akin to a digital computer than a reaction flask?
The question was how the brain functions to produce the mind: the brain does not function like a reaction flask: it's function is dependent on the spatial organization of its elements. In the same way that a calculator is not REDUCIBLE to the laws governing electron behavior, the brain is not REDUCIBLE to the laws of mass action. Just as a calculator does not break any laws of physics, so the brain does not break any laws of chemistry.
Remember as an atheist there is no designer or programmer. Evolution is an impersonal undirected process and your brain is a product of that according to atheists. So it is more likely that it has much more in common with a reaction flask than a digital computer.
This is a complete non sequitor: how is a reaction flask less designed than a computer?
 
Last edited:
Well some humans justify their behavior by comparing it to animals. For example, homosexuals justify their behavior by saying that since animals engage in homosexual behavior then it is natural for humans to engage in it. So are you saying that they are wrong about that?
That's a justification if people say that homosexuality is unnatural, but personally I don't think its a good justification at all; humans are their own species, and ultimately can only be examined rigorously on our own ground. Homosexuality is pretty clearly an intrinsic aspect of human sexual behavior; every society that we know of has homosexuals in it.
Where did these rules come from and why should we abide by them? How did they become oughts?
I do not know, nor does anyone know, exactly how morality evolved. OTOH, there are lots of reasons why it could, as it is certainly an important and universal aspect of human social behavior.
 
Depends on whom you ask.

In his opinion, yes.
In my opinion, no.

Outside of opinions?
Question makes no sense.
Exactly, without God there is no such thing as morality. So Stalin did nothing wrong. Thanks for admitting it. Because of this Atheism leads to anarchy first, then tyranny. So Stalin is the natural result of an atheistic society.
 
I guess I am not sure what you mean then.
Numbers, like the laws of logic, are concepts that can't be other than what they are. For example, the concept of a single item can only be about one item, not two items or any other number of items. Sooner or later these concepts will occur to creatures capable of abstract thought. These concepts need minds to be thought about, but not to be.
I basically agree with you here.
If anyone has a better way of saying this, please chip in.
So if the consequences of your behavior are good for you, then that means it is moral?
Not necessarily. There is good in that something is of personal advantage to you, and then there is moral good. They can be different.
How do you determine what is morally good?
Like Joseph Stalin gained great power and wealth for many years, so does that mean what he did was good?
Only in that it was of personal advantage to him, not in that what he did was morally good, or that he achieved this power and wealth by moral means. In fact we know that Stalin acted immorally most of the time.
How do you know and how did you determine that?
 
I basically agree with you here.
Great.
How do you determine what is morally good?
It's really not that difficult for a lot of situations. A classic example is rape. I determine it's immoral because it's non consensual and causes both physical and mental harm.

Why would God say it's immoral?

How do you know and how did you determine that?
All you have to do is read about what Stalin did to others. There are millions he either killed or caused great harm to.
 
Actually I was wrong, Darwin was not a polygeneist, but he definitely thought blacks and other more primitive humans were an inferior subspecies of human. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-famous-book-Descent-Man-warped-racism.html But yes that does not mean evolution is false.
Thank you.
Even today a father can send his daughter to school or camp against her will at least until age 18. This was like an apprentice marriage. Marriage was much more important in ancient times than today.
But it doesn't say if a man sells his daughter into marriage, it says as a slave.
There may not have been a hebrew word for apprentice. It can mean also servant. But the description is different from slave and in fact it says she is not to be treated as a male slave.
Yes, but why would an atheist think it is immoral since there is no real reason to consider it immoral if there is no God.
Funny how most atheists will say that slavery is immoral then. Would you put this down to coincidence, or would you think they might have a reason to say it?
Only atheists in western Christian based societies. Obviously communist Chinese atheists see nothing wrong with it. Atheists generally reflect the morality of the society they live in or were raised in.
I take it if God didn't exist, you'd be in favour of slavery?
I dont know, but it wouldnt matter since there would be no real moral standards.
Fraid so, most of the Nazi leadership was hardcore evolutionists. Goebbels said that HItler "made fun of the Japanese Minister after an evening party in the Chancellery and said that the minister reminded him of a yellow ape from a primeval jungle." And there are many other examples of their evolutionary views.
Is that it? Is that your reason for thinking this? Don't you have anything more substantial?

Here is a quote from a study entitled "Was Hitler a Darwinian"? By Robert J. Richards The University of Chicago.
Many other books say he and most of the Nazis were evolutionists such as the award winning biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. And a collection of Hitlers Secret Conversations published in 1953. He says some people will be "repelled by the law of nature which demands that all living things should devour each other". But he said it was necessary for life to improve itself.
There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a hierarchy and Darwin’s conception. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape-like predecessors.
Found here.
One historian against the overwhelming majority of historians hardly qualifies as a refutation.
Atheists have no rational objective basis for condemning the holocaust.

Because it hurts someone made in His image.
So, the key element here is, it can only be wrong if man is made in God's image. The fact of harm doesn't count to a Christian unless it happens to someone made in God's image?

That's essentially what you're saying.
Yes, because only then does humanity have infinite intrinsic value. Otherwise he is just another animal that can be used and abused by other animals.
 
There may not have been a hebrew word for apprentice. It can mean also servant. But the description is different from slave and in fact it says she is not to be treated as a male slave.
Here is another verse,

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
"As inherited property". That is slavery, not servant. It describes slavery.
Only atheists in western Christian based societies. Obviously communist Chinese atheists see nothing wrong with it. Atheists generally reflect the morality of the society they live in or were raised in.
Atheists said it when there was slavery in Western, Christian based societies.
I dont know, but it wouldnt matter since there would be no real moral standards.
Good grief. You don't know if, there being no God, you would condemn slavery. That's shocking. I condemn it without any quibble because of what it is.

Of course there would be moral standards without God, because people can be treated unfairly, such as having their liberty taken away by being forced into slavery, which is wrong.

If there were no God and you were forced into slavery, would you say, well, this doesn't matter because there are no real moral standards?

Many other books say he and most of the Nazis were evolutionists such as the award winning biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. And a collection of Hitlers Secret Conversations published in 1953. He says some people will be "repelled by the law of nature which demands that all living things should devour each other". But he said it was necessary for life to improve itself.

One historian against the overwhelming majority of historians hardly qualifies as a refutation.

Yes, because only then does humanity have infinite intrinsic value. Otherwise he is just another animal that can be used and abused by other animals.
None of this means evolution is wrong.
 
Many other books say he and most of the Nazis were evolutionists such as the award winning biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. And a collection of Hitlers Secret Conversations published in 1953.
Can you quote the relevant passage from the book?

Here is a quote from Hitler's Table Talk ...

Whence have we the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning [Uranfängen] what he is today? A glance at nature informs us that in the realm of plants and animals alterations and further formation occur, but nothing indicates that development [Entwicklung] within a species [Gattung] has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an ape-like condition to his present state.87
This is not the talk of an evolutionist.
 
Many other books say he and most of the Nazis were evolutionists such as the award winning biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. And a collection of Hitlers Secret Conversations published in 1953. He says some people will be "repelled by the law of nature which demands that all living things should devour each other". But he said it was necessary for life to improve itself.


We've gone over the very conveniant conflations of ideas of "evolution" on the part of Kershaw, and now you seem to be arguing that Hobbes was an evolutionist (note: he most definitely was not).
This is not honest or accurate history that you are promoting: it is mere polemic, which has its place, but do not call it history.

Yes, because only then does humanity have infinite intrinsic value. Otherwise he is just another animal that can be used and abused by other animals.
Nonsense. If humans grant other humans infinite intrinsic value than that is what they have. Value implies a valuer: you have just moved the valuer elsewhere.

If other human s disagree, then we have to sort things out, and I note religion has not seemed to prevent people from disagreeing in the past.
 
Last edited:
This is the semantic equivalent of saying that Cubists have no rational objective basis to love a rainbow.:rolleyes:
Actually there is a rational objective basis to love a rainbow if the Christian God exists. But there is a big difference between having an objective basis for morality and having one for beauty. Not having one for morality resulted in 100 million deaths in the 20th century.
Amazing what passes for apologetics in some circles.
Thanks.
 
No, Haeckel and Wallace were monogenists and there are probably some modern less well known monogenists as well.
I think you meant they were polygenists. Yes, I will give you that one. However, they disagreed with Darwin about the descent of man.

Yes, but it is quite obvious from the Bible that the curse of Ham only applied to his descendents that settled the land of Israel not Africa.
And yet plenty of Christians used it to affirm their view that black people were inferior, were slaves by God's will.
Yes, but 95% of all humans at that time were racists including atheists. Sinful Christians justified their racism by distorting Bible verses.
This is simply a historical fact. You can disagree with those Christians, but you cannot pretend they do not exist.
Very few Christians believe this today however.
You are right he was a monogenist but he was definitely a racist. He plainly considered most of the nonwhite races as inferior.
As a Victoria Englishman, he possibly did, but he was surely less racist than most of his generation. He was, after all, the guy who proved we are all one race! Undoubtedly this is partly why his book was so controversial.
Not really, God said in the Bible we were all one race 3500 years ago. We all descended from Adam and Eve. Even most Christian racists believed that blacks were 100% human. Only the racist evolutionists believed that blacks were a different species or subspecies.
Also worth noting that he is on record condemning slavery, while your God is on record allowing it.
No, God only allows voluntary slavery.
Did you know Darwin was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln? Who was more racist?
They were about the same. I dont think Darwin advocated blacks to vote or intermarry.
Nevertheless he was a racist. Yes, the Bible is against involuntary slavery as I have demonstrated in the other thread.
You asserted that, based on quotes about Hebrew slaves.

The Bible explicitly says gentiles can be owned as property, for life.
Only if they die before the year of Jubilee.

Nope not property in the sense you are referring. And only for life if he died before the year of Jubilee. Also, if his master mistreats him, he can escape to a sanctuary city, see Deuteronomy 23:15-16.
And yet it says the gentile slave can be regarded as property, can be kept for life - and not until the Jubilee - and that he can be treated ruthlessly.

You are confusing the treatment of Hebrew slaves and gentile slaves.
Fraid not, see above
It was but without any basis, because all of the nations that surrounded Israel were Semitic peoples, the same race as the Hebrews, so it would be impossible for it to be race based slavery.
The slavery in the Bible is based on the same bigotry of them-and-us. In the Bible, the in-group is the Israelites; Israelites are to be treated well. The out-group is the gentiles. They can be used as chattel slaves, no need to treat them well.

In antebellum America, blacks were the out-group. But the slavery was the same.
No, I demonstrated that gentiles had to be treated just like hebrews earlier in this thread.
Many of the less religious slave holders based it on evolution in the 1850s and early 60s.
Can you support that claim, or is this something modern Christians have made up to justify the horrors perpetrated with the support of the Bible?
No, read "Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority. 1859-1900." By John S. Haller.
That can happen if you fail to understand scripture properly and become blinded by racism.
It is worth noting that the last places where racist segregation was perpetrated in the US was Christian school and universities.

On national television in March 2000, Bob Jones III, who was the university’s president until 2005, stated that BJU was wrong in not admitting African-American students before 1971, which sadly was a common practice of both public and private universities in the years prior to that time. On the same program, he announced the lifting of the University’s policy against interracial dating.
At Bob Jones University, Scripture is our final authority for faith and practice and it is our intent to have it govern all of our policies. It teaches that God created the human race as one race.


Bear that in mind where you discuss racism.

el cid: Yes, but it was also Christians and Christianity that ended slavery and segregation.
Christians are sinners too. But that doesnt discredit Christianity anymore than evolution is discredited because Nazi justification for the Holocaust was based on Darwinian evolution, right?
The Nazi justification for the Holocaust was based on Christianity, not evolution, so no, that doers not discredit evolution at all.

Something like 96% of Germans in 1939 were Christians. The blueprint for the Holocaust was written by Martin Luther, the devout Christian who founded Protestantism. Are you a Protestant?

Books on evolution were banned in Nazi German, but Hitler is on record saying how much he admired Luther.

And, of course, there is a long, long history of anti-Semitism embedded in Christianity.
No, most of the Nazis were hard core evolutionists including Hitler. Read Ian Kershaw's award winning biography of Hitler. And Hitler hated Christians. But he knew most Germans claimed to be Christians so he used Christian terms is some of his propaganda. But he is recorded by Martin Borman as saying that after he destroyed the jews, he would destroy the Christian church. Yes, most of the ordinary Germans claimed to be Christians but they were in plain violation of the First Commandment. They placed their nation above God and His moral law. And many churches were starting to turn against the Bible such as the German Christian Church.
Fraid so, read "Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism" by Richard Weikart.
A book full of BS by a Christian desperate to discredit Darwin. I do not think I will bother with that one.
You just committed the Genetic Fallacy.
If you think his arguments have worth, present them here.
See above.
Not the leadership, but yes most ordinary Germans claimed to be Christians but most had become Nationalists, where the nation is placed above God and His moral laws. A plain violation of the First Commandment. Also, there was a growing number of liberal Christians in Germany who rejected the moral absolutes of the Bible like "You shall not murder."
Nationalism and Christianity are all-to-often found together. Look at the far right in the US today.
Very few American Christians are real nationalists. Nationalists want large powerful governments, most American Christians want a smaller less powerful government. The modern Democratic party has much more in common with Nationalists and Fascists than Christian republicans. They favor censorship and the devaluation of human life.
el cid:Luther never advocated extermination of the jews. And he only turned against the jews in old age because they had failed to convert as much as he hoped after he had reformed the church. In his younger years he told the German people to treat jews with respect. BTW Hitler's other two heroes you mention were atheists. He had much more in common with them than Luther.
Not quite extermination, but everything up to that.

The objectively existing moral character of God.
The God who said chattel slavery is allowed... as long as they are gentiles.
No, see above and throughout this thread.
 
Actually there is a rational objective basis to love a rainbow if the Christian God exists.
If you are into feeling sentiments because someone else tells you you should, OK.
You might want to give that one a long think.
 
Yes, but 95% of all humans at that time were racists including atheists. Sinful Christians justified their racism by distorting Bible verses.
So we agree that a huge number of Christians were racists. I guess that is a start.

Very few Christians believe this today however.
I sincerely hope that is true, but from what I see of the far right in the US I am doubtful. Admittedly, that may be the more noisy end of the spectrum distorting my perspective.

Not really, God said in the Bible we were all one race 3500 years ago. We all descended from Adam and Eve. Even most Christian racists believed that blacks were 100% human. Only the racist evolutionists believed that blacks were a different species or subspecies.
Yes really. That God said it in the Bible is a religious belief. Darwin showed it is science.

No, God only allows voluntary slavery.
Not true, despite your wishful thinking.

Darwin condemned slavery. Your God did not.

They were about the same. I dont think Darwin advocated blacks to vote or intermarry.
And neither did he say it should not be allowed. But okay, let us go with Darwin being only as racist as Lincoln.

Only if they die before the year of Jubilee.
The Jubilee thing only applies to Hebrew slaves, not gentile slaves. The Bible explicitly says gentile slaves are slaves for life.

This has been pointed out numerous times. Do you really need me to quote the verses again?

Fraid not, see above

No, I demonstrated that gentiles had to be treated just like hebrews earlier in this thread.
No, you have expressed that opinion, based on wishful thinking, and it has been trashed again and again

No, read "Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority. 1859-1900." By John S. Haller.
Can you quote the bit that supports your contention

No, most of the Nazis were hard core evolutionists including Hitler. Read Ian Kershaw's award winning biography of Hitler.
Again, please quote the book if it supports your position.

And Hitler hated Christians. But he knew most Germans claimed to be Christians so he used Christian terms is some of his propaganda. But he is recorded by Martin Borman as saying that after he destroyed the jews, he would destroy the Christian church.
Destroying the church is different to hating Christianity. He may have considered the church to be corrupt.

Yes, most of the ordinary Germans claimed to be Christians but they were in plain violation of the First Commandment. They placed their nation above God and His moral law. And many churches were starting to turn against the Bible such as the German Christian Church.
Unfortunately Christianity has a long history of anti-Semitism, blaming Jews for the death of Jesus - deicide. They used the "blood curse" to justify killing Jews, and this started long before Hitler.

See above.
I am looking but seeing nothing in the way of arguments that Darwinism influenced Hitler outside the unsupported assertion that "most of the Nazis were hard core evolutionists including Hitler".

Very few American Christians are real nationalists. Nationalists want large powerful governments, most American Christians want a smaller less powerful government. The modern Democratic party has much more in common with Nationalists and Fascists than Christian republicans. They favor censorship and the devaluation of human life.
Ah, so you are defining nationalist in a specific way, and can then claim most Americans are not nationalists. An interesting variant on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
 
Back
Top