Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity is morally defunct

Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello everyone.
Hope you're all doing fine irrespective of how you feel about the topic at hand.

Christianity is morally defunct because:

1. It's main premise is demonstrably false. Adam never existed. Hence Original Sin is likewise fictional and so the need for atonement rendered meaningless.

But even if it were historically accurate, that main premise would nonetheless remain an immoral doctrine. Out of his own volition, God chose to have Adam's descendants inherit his sin. It would be perfectly within reason and fairness to have Adam pay for his mistake and leave it at that. Yet from Adam onward, humans were rendered sinful by design, i. e., sin was made an inescapable inevitability, by the very same deity which would then proceed to judge and convict humans for not escaping that which he had made them prisoners of.

2. The episode of the world wide flood, which Jesus professed to believe and without which biblical genealogy makes no sense at all, is in and of itself am ethical monstrosity. For the sake of argument, let's put aside the fact it never happened, and examine it at face value. Not only did God supposedly kill every single human being but for Noah's family of eight, he also went on to commit the gravest ecological crime of all time and exterminate the fauna of the Earth. Remember, animals dispossess the ability to sin , which means they weren't on trial and thus deserved no penalty but received it in its most potent form nonetheless. Moreover, God didn't simply sublimate sinners. He choose to drown them in the most excruciatingly painful way possible and extend the courtesy to, for example, newborn babies, infants and mentally handicapped people, all of which were incapable of discernment and thus unable to understand, let alone put credence on the doubtful claim that they could survive Earth's incoming flood by getting into the ark. Notice that God set up a scenario where a serial rapist could manage to emerge intact if only he had believed Noah whereas a trivial sinner would die a painful death for merely being a sceptic . Yes, the Flood is a fictional obscenity from beginning to end.

3. Humanity is held at point blank range and asked "Do you accept my kind offer, do you?!". I'm sorry, but this is the doing of a mobster. The Bible explicitly says only a small minority will survive Armageddon. Let's do the math. Best case scenario: half of mankind plus one is annihilated. As it stands today, that means some 3 500 000 001 people pulverized. Hitler has half a dozen millions killed and he's rightly deemed a monster, God is readying himself to do the same thing only to a 500 times larger extent, and he's the embodiment of Love.

As in the global flood, the requisite for salvation is not one's moral stature. It's one's credulity. One could be a life long child molester and get a last minute pass to heaven provided one repented and accepted Christ as one's saviour. Contrast that with what would happen in a court of law. At the most, contrition might mitigate the sentence, not erase it.

4. We're often told Christ died for our sins. That's a complete misrepresentation, even if we were to believe every single biblical word. Death is permanent and that permanence is its intrinsic quality. You cannot call a suspension of beingness that lasted precisely 72 hours and was followed by an exalted and privileged state of existence that far surpassed anything Christ had enjoyed before, death. You simply can't. It's much more akin to a 3 day sleep marathon followed by the most lavish reward you can think of.

Thanks.
JD_Carson
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:58:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
Hello everyone.
Hope you're all doing fine irrespective of how you feel about the topic at hand.

Christianity is morally defunct because:

1. It's main premise is demonstrably false. Adam never existed. Hence Original Sin is likewise fictional and so the need for atonement rendered meaningless.

But even if it were historically accurate, that main premise would nonetheless remain an immoral doctrine. Out of his own volition, God chose to have Adam's descendants inherit his sin. It would be perfectly within reason and fairness to have Adam pay for his mistake and leave it at that. Yet from Adam onward, humans were rendered sinful by design, i. e., sin was made an inescapable inevitability, by the very same deity which would then proceed to judge and convict humans for not escaping that which he had made them prisoners of.

2. The episode of the world wide flood, which Jesus professed to believe and without which biblical genealogy makes no sense at all, is in and of itself am ethical monstrosity. For the sake of argument, let's put aside the fact it never happened, and examine it at face value. Not only did God supposedly kill every single human being but for Noah's family of eight, he also went on to commit the gravest ecological crime of all time and exterminate the fauna of the Earth. Remember, animals dispossess the ability to sin , which means they weren't on trial and thus deserved no penalty but received it in its most potent form nonetheless. Moreover, God didn't simply sublimate sinners. He choose to drown them in the most excruciatingly painful way possible and extend the courtesy to, for example, newborn babies, infants and mentally handicapped people, all of which were incapable of discernment and thus unable to understand, let alone put credence on the doubtful claim that they could survive Earth's incoming flood by getting into the ark. Notice that God set up a scenario where a serial rapist could manage to emerge intact if only he had believed Noah whereas a trivial sinner would die a painful death for merely being a sceptic . Yes, the Flood is a fictional obscenity from beginning to end.

3. Humanity is held at point blank range and asked "Do you accept my kind offer, do you?!". I'm sorry, but this is the doing of a mobster. The Bible explicitly says only a small minority will survive Armageddon. Let's do the math. Best case scenario: half of mankind plus one is annihilated. As it stands today, that means some 3 500 000 001 people pulverized. Hitler has half a dozen millions killed and he's rightly deemed a monster, God is readying himself to do the same thing only to a 500 times larger extent, and he's the embodiment of Love.

As in the global flood, the requisite for salvation is not one's moral stature. It's one's credulity. One could be a life long child molester and get a last minute pass to heaven provided one repented and accepted Christ as one's saviour. Contrast that with what would happen in a court of law. At the most, contrition might mitigate the sentence, not erase it.

4. We're often told Christ died for our sins. That's a complete misrepresentation, even if we were to believe every single biblical word. Death is permanent and that permanence is its intrinsic quality. You cannot call a suspension of beingness that lasted precisely 72 hours and was followed by an exalted and privileged state of existence that far surpassed anything Christ had enjoyed before, death. You simply can't. It's much more akin to a 3 day sleep marathon followed by the most lavish reward you can think of.

Thanks. : :

No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:18:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sin as a fictitious disease sold to a credulous public so they will have to purchase an equally fictitious cure at the cost of their total subservience to an invisible, undetectable being via his human representatives, who collect all the benefit.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

It's almost a trivial matter to erect a body of morally objective truths. No God required.
Certainly, it's a blatant non sequitur to claim the existence of moral objective truths asserts or requires the existence of God.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:01:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?

In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:04:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.

I think Sam Harris has made a strong case for the existence of objective moral tenets that do not require Godly assertions at all.

Either way, Christianity remains morally defunct.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:51:31 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.


It's almost a trivial matter to erect a body of morally objective truths. No God required.
Certainly, it's a blatant non sequitur to claim the existence of moral objective truths asserts or requires the existence of God.

Morality is the principles that determine good behavior (what we ought to do) and bad behavior (what we ought not to do). Objective morality means that there is behavior we definitively ought/ought not do. If God doesn't exist, humanity is inherently purposeless. We're a means without an end. A definitive "ought" is an intrinsic end on human purpose. So it's not possible if we don't have inherent purpose, and inherent purpose is impossible without God's existence.

A second way to look at it is that anything "morally good/bad" always references the disposition/will of the mind. Hatred, cruelty, greed, etc., are objectively "bad" dispositions while compassion, patience, and humility are objectively "good" dispositions. The will of the mind is whatever action exhibits those dispositions. Adopting a child with a disability exhibits compassion. Killing an infant for fun exhibits cruelty. So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:15:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:01:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?


In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.

What is that assurance based on? That being, why are you so confident that no objective standard can be found?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:15:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:01:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?



In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.

What is that assurance based on? That being, why are you so confident that no objective standard can be found?

Post #12 is where I've explained it
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:17:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:15:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:01:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?



In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.

What is that assurance based on? That being, why are you so confident that no objective standard can be found?

Post #12 is where I've explained it

Sort of, but not fully.

"So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists." God exists doesn't follow, btw. It was never a ground work laid, it has no foundation, and reference to such could just as easily be any other supernatural creature of which no evidence can be found, or alien race with the same problems.

Back to my "sort of, but not fully"- you actually listed a handful of objective positions, but didn't tie them up. We can recognized cruelty and the like based literally on the self, and being an empathetic creature, can recognize it in others, too. Without going to overboard on this (currently time has me in a pinch), what prevents any of those recognized traits you mentioned from being a foundation for something objective?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:30:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Yep. And I quote.
The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

She was a branching point, not the first anything but herself a product of literally billions of years of evolutionary development. Are we all her descendents? In a manner of speaking, but only in a manner of speaking.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:31:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:20:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:17:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:15:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:01:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:44:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
What determines whether something is moral/immoral? If it's a subjective determination, your premise is a meritless opinion. If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence. What you should do is say that IF the Christian God exists, it's internally incompatible with it's own sense of morality.

Are you 100% sure that objective morality has to come from something outside humanity?



In the sense of what we ought/ought not do, yes.

What is that assurance based on? That being, why are you so confident that no objective standard can be found?

Post #12 is where I've explained it

Sort of, but not fully.

"So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists." God exists doesn't follow, btw. It was never a ground work laid, it has no foundation, and reference to such could just as easily be any other supernatural creature of which no evidence can be found, or alien race with the same problems.

It shows that a third-party mind and arbiter of human purpose exists (since moral realism are intrinsic ends on human purpose) . That is what I'm referring to as God.

Back to my "sort of, but not fully"- you actually listed a handful of objective positions, but didn't tie them up. We can recognized cruelty and the like based literally on the self, and being an empathetic creature, can recognize it in others, too. Without going to overboard on this (currently time has me in a pinch), what prevents any of those recognized traits you mentioned from being a foundation for something objective?

Because our "ends" are self-determined if we're inherently purposeless. There is no such thing as anything we definitively ought/ought not do in that case.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:32:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Morality is the principles that determine good behavior (what we ought to do) and bad behavior (what we ought not to do). Objective morality means that there is behavior we definitively ought/ought not do. If God doesn't exist, humanity is inherently purposeless. We're a means without an end. A definitive "ought" is an intrinsic end on human purpose. So it's not possible if we don't have inherent purpose, and inherent purpose is impossible without God's existence.

A second way to look at it is that anything "morally good/bad" always references the disposition/will of the mind. Hatred, cruelty, greed, etc., are objectively "bad" dispositions while compassion, patience, and humility are objectively "good" dispositions. The will of the mind is whatever action exhibits those dispositions. Adopting a child with a disability exhibits compassion. Killing an infant for fun exhibits cruelty. So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists.

I'm sorry, but that is a load of hogwash. On several levels, actually.

From a strictly Darwinian point of view, humanity is here to make sure it will be here tomorrow. No God required. From that, lots of tenets follow, including that recognition that strict primal Darwinian impulses have been superseded by the requirements of gregarious life as the prime criterion through which evaluate moral assertions. Because this criterion is in fact objective we have the basis of erecting what you deemed impossible without God.

Further evidence that God, at least the Christian God, is no source of objective moral truths is the plethora of ethical stances adopted by professing Christians, on top, of course, of all the moral obscenities with which both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are jampacked with.

Moral objective truths rely on the human mind on several senses. First off, humans alone seem to possess moral agency. Without humans, and their minds, the question is meaningless. Math exists as a construct in human minds alone and yet it is objective. You are nowhere near of demonstrating that objective moral truths exist, or anything of similar nature for that matter, exists outside human minds.

Lastly, while I recognize that it is entirely possible to start erecting the building of objective moral truths, an enterprise that the likes of Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty have taken on, I also find it dangerously close to a mcguffin.

Those who claim to have objective moral truth on their side can't seem to reach a bare minimum agreement . All we can ever hope for is to build a growing social consensus, which is what we have in the liberal West. I'm fine with that.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:38:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Oh, and...

"Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study was groundbreaking enough that it changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related."

Your conclusion is, as usual, based on your own bias and not on the research you referenced.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:32:29 PM, Hitchian wrote:
Morality is the principles that determine good behavior (what we ought to do) and bad behavior (what we ought not to do). Objective morality means that there is behavior we definitively ought/ought not do. If God doesn't exist, humanity is inherently purposeless. We're a means without an end. A definitive "ought" is an intrinsic end on human purpose. So it's not possible if we don't have inherent purpose, and inherent purpose is impossible without God's existence.

A second way to look at it is that anything "morally good/bad" always references the disposition/will of the mind. Hatred, cruelty, greed, etc., are objectively "bad" dispositions while compassion, patience, and humility are objectively "good" dispositions. The will of the mind is whatever action exhibits those dispositions. Adopting a child with a disability exhibits compassion. Killing an infant for fun exhibits cruelty. So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists.

I'm sorry, but that is a load of hogwash. On several levels, actually.

You haven't rebutted a word I've said. Your response consisted of why you believe God isn't necessary for objective morality without responding to any of my points in that post. First respond to my points and then I'll respond to yours.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:09:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:41:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:32:29 PM, Hitchian wrote:
Morality is the principles that determine good behavior (what we ought to do) and bad behavior (what we ought not to do). Objective morality means that there is behavior we definitively ought/ought not do. If God doesn't exist, humanity is inherently purposeless. We're a means without an end. A definitive "ought" is an intrinsic end on human purpose. So it's not possible if we don't have inherent purpose, and inherent purpose is impossible without God's existence.

A second way to look at it is that anything "morally good/bad" always references the disposition/will of the mind. Hatred, cruelty, greed, etc., are objectively "bad" dispositions while compassion, patience, and humility are objectively "good" dispositions. The will of the mind is whatever action exhibits those dispositions. Adopting a child with a disability exhibits compassion. Killing an infant for fun exhibits cruelty. So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists.

I'm sorry, but that is a load of hogwash. On several levels, actually.

You haven't rebutted a word I've said. Your response consisted of why you believe God isn't necessary for objective morality without responding to any of my points in that post. First respond to my points and then I'll respond to yours.

Perhaps you'd like to read back. I'm going to reiterate:

Contrary to what you sated, there is purpose in the absence of god, in the Darwinian sense. From that follows lots of morally objective tenets. The classic example is piranhas. They don't eat each other out, and not God because has commanded them not to.

The second point isn't hard to unpack either, but I'll pass. I'd rather say this again: we don't seem to have the need for the acknowledgement of objective moral truths. Liberal west has reached a social consensus that seems to work just fine and dandy and is not dependant upon God's pronouncements in the least. The history of mankind proves we've done fairly well in its seeming absence or, from another perspective, equally bad at the time of its proclaimed existence. To all intents and purposes, moral objective truth doesn't exist and still mankind is doing a heck lot better than it was doing in the stone age, the middle ages, or just a century ago. which is to say just as secularism rose and theism decayed.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:40:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence.

False asumpition bordering on circular logic.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:41:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 4:09:44 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:41:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:32:29 PM, Hitchian wrote:
Morality is the principles that determine good behavior (what we ought to do) and bad behavior (what we ought not to do). Objective morality means that there is behavior we definitively ought/ought not do. If God doesn't exist, humanity is inherently purposeless. We're a means without an end. A definitive "ought" is an intrinsic end on human purpose. So it's not possible if we don't have inherent purpose, and inherent purpose is impossible without God's existence.

A second way to look at it is that anything "morally good/bad" always references the disposition/will of the mind. Hatred, cruelty, greed, etc., are objectively "bad" dispositions while compassion, patience, and humility are objectively "good" dispositions. The will of the mind is whatever action exhibits those dispositions. Adopting a child with a disability exhibits compassion. Killing an infant for fun exhibits cruelty. So, if we agree that moral goodness/badness always references the disposition/will of the mind, and morality is objective (meaning it has no reliance on the human mind), a mind apart from the mind is the source of moral goodness/badness. This means that God exists.

I'm sorry, but that is a load of hogwash. On several levels, actually.

You haven't rebutted a word I've said. Your response consisted of why you believe God isn't necessary for objective morality without responding to any of my points in that post. First respond to my points and then I'll respond to yours.

Perhaps you'd like to read back. I'm going to reiterate:

Contrary to what you sated, there is purpose in the absence of god, in the Darwinian sense. From that follows lots of morally objective tenets. The classic example is piranhas. They don't eat each other out, and not God because has commanded them not to.

Explain to me how evolution, an unembodied process - devoid of intent and knowledge - occurs for a purpose.

The second point isn't hard to unpack either, but I'll pass.

So you'll concede it, then.

I'd rather say this again: we don't seem to have the need for the acknowledgement of objective moral truths. Liberal west has reached a social consensus that seems to work just fine and dandy and is not dependant upon God's pronouncements in the least. The history of mankind proves we've done fairly well in its seeming absence or, from another perspective, equally bad at the time of its proclaimed existence. To all intents and purposes, moral objective truth doesn't exist and still mankind is doing a heck lot better than it was doing in the stone age, the middle ages, or just a century ago. which is to say just as secularism rose and theism decayed.

This doesn't defend the notion that objective moral truths don't require God's existence. Further, making judgments about moral progress, like saying "we're doing a heck of a lot better" is impossible if objective morality doesn't exist. It's merely your unmerited opinion that it is so. Also, humanity has no inherent purpose so you're presupposing human flourishing is an intrinsically good end.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 4:40:55 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:33:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/18/2015 1:36:10 PM, Hitchian wrote:
If it's objectively immoral, this entails God's existence.

False asumpition bordering on circular logic.

Defend this assertion.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:10:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:38:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Oh, and...

"Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study was groundbreaking enough that it changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related."


That is what Genesis say; we are all related to Adam and Eve.
Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
http://www.sci-news.com...

Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Your conclusion is, as usual, based on your own bias and not on the research you referenced.
Where are your citations?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
False. By definition God cannot be immoral.
A being which is 100% capable of rewarding those who follow its moral standard and punishing those who don't is the greatest standard by which morality is determined. Might makes right and you can't get more might than God.
If God decides that His moral code applies only to human beings and not to Himself that is His right since He has the power to enforce this standard. Since He decides these things then it is not immoral for God to do anything though it is for us.

We human beings can look up at God and decide that He is immoral and/or that He ought to abide by the same standard as us, but we cannot make God abide by our standard so it's basically just our opinion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:21:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:10:51 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:38:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Oh, and...

"Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study was groundbreaking enough that it changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related."


That is what Genesis say; we are all related to Adam and Eve.
Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
http://www.sci-news.com...

Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Your conclusion is, as usual, based on your own bias and not on the research you referenced.
Where are your citations?

The same as yours, right out of your reference.

The findings contradict a recent study " published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in February 2013 " which had claimed the human Y chromosome originated in a different species through interbreeding which dates Adam to be twice as old.

"In fact, their hypothesis creates a sort of space-time paradox whereby the most ancient individual belonging to Homo sapiens species has not yet been born. If we take the numerical results from previous studies seriously we can conclude that the past may be altered by the mother of Adam deciding not to conceive him in the future, thus, bringing a retroactive end to our species."

"It is obvious that modern humans did not interbreed with hominins living over 500,000 years ago. It is also clear that there was no single Adam and Eve but rather groups of Adams and Eves living side by side and wandering together in our world."

Dr Elhaik noted: "the question to what extend did our humans forbearers interbreed with their closest relatives is one of the hottest questions in anthropology that remains open."

Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
http://www.sci-news.com...

Emphasis mine.

Once again, you leave out the salient portions of the article in your reading so it says what you want it to, not what it actually says.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:37:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:21:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 5:10:51 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:38:05 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Oh, and...

"Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study was groundbreaking enough that it changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related."


That is what Genesis say; we are all related to Adam and Eve.
Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
http://www.sci-news.com...

Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Your conclusion is, as usual, based on your own bias and not on the research you referenced.
Where are your citations?

The same as yours, right out of your reference.

The findings contradict a recent study " published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in February 2013 " which had claimed the human Y chromosome originated in a different species through interbreeding which dates Adam to be twice as old.

"In fact, their hypothesis creates a sort of space-time paradox whereby the most ancient individual belonging to Homo sapiens species has not yet been born. If we take the numerical results from previous studies seriously we can conclude that the past may be altered by the mother of Adam deciding not to conceive him in the future, thus, bringing a retroactive end to our species."

"It is obvious that modern humans did not interbreed with hominins living over 500,000 years ago. It is also clear that there was no single Adam and Eve but rather groups of Adams and Eves living side by side and wandering together in our world."

Dr Elhaik noted: "the question to what extend did our humans forbearers interbreed with their closest relatives is one of the hottest questions in anthropology that remains open."

Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
http://www.sci-news.com...

Emphasis mine.

Once again, you leave out the salient portions of the article in your reading so it says what you want it to, not what it actually says.

Your reading skills are terrible. The new study finds the old study " which had claimed the human Y chromosome originated in a different species through interbreeding which dates Adam to be twice as old.
It is obvious that modern humans did not interbreed with hominins living over 500,000 years ago. "
Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study


You cannot even tell what the new study is challenging. Get an education!!!!
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:45:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 3:30:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 3:12:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:55:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:47:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/18/2015 2:07:28 PM, Hitchian wrote:
No Christian or atheist knows how God created everything. If you did, then you wouldn't be arguing with each other.

I fail to see how that's remotely pertinent to anything that I've written. But thanks.

But we do know that Adam did not exist, that life evolved as opposed to being created. There was no original seminal male from whom all humans sprouted from. That's been established.

So there goes Original sin and everything that follows.

You need to update your science. Mitochondrial DNA has been traced to a common female ancestor Eve. And chromosome studies suggest a common male ancestor Adam.
Is something as simple as eating a fruit....the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil cause such a backlash that effected generations to come? Even though our genes may not be directly effected by this innocuous exercise., study reveals there are other consequences diet and habits can contribute to and carry over from past generations.

Inheriting Epigenetic Changes
"The conventional view was that every characteristic that we inherit is carried by our DNA, and nothing we do in our lifetime can be biologically passed to our children. Whatever choices we make during our lives might make us fat, give us a heart attack and/or hasten death, but they won't change our genes. However there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings, can work their way into the gene line and reverberate far into the future. In other words.. what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren - "

No scientist worthy of that name traces humankind back to a single genetic bottleneck of exactly one couple of male and female human beings. I'm not going to argue with you on this particular outlandish claim. I'll leave it at it.

So your science is a bit rusty.
Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Yep. And I quote.
The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

She was a branching point, not the first anything but herself a product of literally billions of years of evolutionary development. Are we all her descendents? In a manner of speaking, but only in a manner of speaking.

All we have is evidence we can be traced back to Mitochrondial Eve. The others are pure speculation.