Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Dubious]

Ooops. I see you're not familiar with logic. Both above and here, you show you are unfamiliar with the ideas of "premises" and of "propositions." I say this because first you asked why any were necessary, then used it as a synonym for...what? Maybe, "guess-making"? Maybe "supposition"? I can't tell. But I can tell you don't know what one is.

I don't want to be pedantic, but we won't be able to go forward unless I straighten this out for you. In brief, premises or "propositions" are needed for any logical syllogism. They form the first two stages of the minimal three required to form a rational argument.

I'm familiar with their meaning even if I don't apply them in the precise context you require especially as applied to others but seldom conformed to by yourself. But thank you for your advise regardless. The long and short of it is your entire edifice is based purely on suppositions presented as propositions which for you amount to virtual certainty as it relates to the Bible.

Therefore my post stands precisely as written.

Btw, do really believe that a moral sense is built upon and decided by syllogisms? That's why I asked you <why would a moral sense even require "premises" to justify itself in the first place and if so why??> You're the one who first used the word as in Atheism has no moral premises to offer. I merely followed up because your usage of it in context didn't seem correct to me.

[Belinda]

(Belinda)But the degree of suffering which many of His creatures have to undergo prevents me from trusting that supernatural God is all-good and all-powerful.

(Immanuel)This is not a deal-breaker at all. If you think of God in a Determinist way, as the arbitrary Determiner of all that is, then yes, it's a problem. But if you believe that human beings have free will, and that they live in a free-will-permitting universe, then it's not really an issue at all. Evil and suffering are not the bestowments of God, but rather the byproducts of bad human choice making, and of a choice-permitting universe. God's role is actually to deliver us from the bad choice-making in which we have indulged.

You are talking about moral evil i.e. the suffering that men cause to men. Natural evil is immensely worse; see how human life, and all life departs eventually, see also natural disasters in the interim before the big death of all.

The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is well enough known and if not surely we can all Google it! And I have not misread it . This parable explains the infinite mercy of love. I just cannot believe that you will lower yourself to quibble about the unusual title I gave to 'labourers'.



(Belinda)The parables of Jesus can be used by unbelievers in a supernatural God.

(Immanuel)"Used"? How, and for what?

(Belinda)The answer would be too long for this forum. If you like to start a thread about some particular parable's interpretation please do so.

(Immanuel)If the last 350 years of moral philosophy have taught us anything, it's that "reason" doesn't tell us anything about morality. Reason will not tell us what "good" is, far less obligate us to any duty to care for "the good."

And I think that't the BIG lesson from modern ethics...if we miss that, then I would say we need more readings in modern ethics. In fact, the current state of ethics is "anti-ethics," or what's called the "End of Ethics" idea. Given a naturalistic, rationalistic approach, it's pretty clear that ethics is entirely dead. Really, it died when we abandoned Metaphysics.

(Belinda) But naturalism provides an atheist like me with the rationale for ethics. Naturalism explains how we men are social animals, artificially bred, who experience the need to care for each other. Some of this need to care for each other is our ancient nature as nurturers of our vulnerable young, and some is our social nature which is facilitated by reason.

[Londoner]

If theists can have 'different views', then their view of morality cannot be objective.
Non sequitur. There are different kinds of Theist. Some can be right, and some can be wrong. There's no monolithic unity implied.

Yes, we have established that when you write of 'theism' being able to provide an objective view of morality you don't mean 'theism'; you only mean your own view. So we need to move on an examine whether your own view can be called 'objective'.

Oh, absolutely. I marvel that it took us so long to establish that. Yes, have always been assuming that, and make no apology for it.

It would have been established sooner if instead of 'theists' you had written 'I' and 'me'.

Non sequitur. I'm speaking of the proposition that God exists, which if true, will be true for everyone -- even Atheists -- regardless of my personal beliefs.

And can you prove that is the case?

No, that would only be true if I posited a God as merely material. Material entities have specific location, extension and so forth: entities with metaphysical properties do not.

'Merely material' ? Does that mean that God is 'partly material'? But surely that part of God which was material would not be God, so God is partly not-God. (And what is the location, dimensions etc. of the bit of God which is material?)

But anyway, what about the bit of God which is not material, in what sense is that 'objective'?

Well, I think I can. After all, God has an objective identity. To the extent that they describe the actual features of God, a given religion may be correct; and to the extent they get the objective facts about God wrong, they're wrong. But not because I say so...because God says so.

How do you know 'God says so'? You say theists can get the objective facts wrong, so why can't you?

For example, one of the fundamental confessions in Judaism (and in Islam) is that of their being one God. That means that either the Polytheists are right, or the Jews are right, or if God didn't exist, both would be wrong. But one thing we can know for certain: it is logically absurd to say that they are both right. That's logically impossible, by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I do not see where that gets you. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies if two propositions are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The examples you gave are not jointly exhaustive, since there are further possibilities, for example that God does not exist at all.

Not the point. I was just saying that we can agree on things. It's not true to say that everybody has his or her own unique, unsharable perspective for all things.

and yet...

You seem to think that what "most people" believe is of some importance. Except during elections and beauty contests, it's just not. That's Bandwagon Fallacy.

So are you saying the fact that people agree, or disagree, is significant or not?

Non-sequitur. There are non-physical, objective facts. For example, "Child abuse is wrong," is a value judgment, but I hope we both believe it's objectively true.

The way you phrase it of course begs the question, since to call it 'abuse' already includes a value judgement. If we understand English we will understand that 'abuse' means 'treat badly' - but we might not agree what forms of treatment should be called 'abuse'.

If you had named something specific, I might agree that most people thought it amounted to 'abuse', but that would be a fact about public opinion, not the act. If somebody disagreed that act was child abuse, I cannot point to any fact about the act that would dissuade them. For example, both sides of the abortion debate know what abortion involves; that they disagree whether abortion is 'abuse' is not a disagreement about the objective fact of what happens.

But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit.

Me: Now I am asking where this objectivity is obtained. First, what is this objective basis for the specific form of theism you approve of, such that you can demonstrate from fact that you are right and others are wrong? And (as others have asked) how would we get from that fact to a moral 'ought'?

Can you sharpen the question? You've got about three I can see in there, and I'm not sure which angle you wish to take. Which would you like to start with?

You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.

Me: Isn't it the case that you must be using the term 'objective' is a peculiar way?

Not peculiar at all, since "objective" is not coextensive with "physical". We all think "love" is real, for example. But in what sense can we speak of it as material or physical? None, really. The most we can say is that it's a metaphysical interpretation of a selection of physical events. But we can't put it in callipers, or in a beaker, or heat it up with a bunsen burner.

So is that the nature of your objective evidence? That it 'objectively exists' in the sense that our emotions exist? When you say 'God objectively exists' you mean 'I have the idea of God'?

So when you say your own beliefs provide you with a basis for an objective morality, that basis is your belief. That something is moral - because you think it is moral.

OK, but I do not see how the fact that you think a particular way is evidence that people who think differently to you are wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

...your entire edifice is based purely on suppositions presented as propositions which for you amount to virtual certainty as it relates to the Bible.

That's a tidy theory. Unfortunately, it's not true. But if it functions for you, you may be reluctant to relinquish it, I understand; not knowing me, you have no reason on hand to incentivize you to relinquish a theory you think is explaining things to you.

Btw, do really believe that a moral sense is built upon and decided by syllogisms?

No, of course: rationality cannot "decide" anything. But rational thought is premised upon syllogisms, whether they are formed well and consciously, or whether they are formed only accidentally, by people who don't actually understand the rules of logic.

People who are not familiar with logic tend to argue in what's called "enthymemes," which are syllogisms with only two terms expressed -- a single premise and a conclusion -- but with some tacit, often unconscious premise taken for granted. For example, someone who argues like this:

You are a Theist,
Therefore, you have no evidence.

Is actually arguing like this:

You are a Theist.
Theists cannot have evidence.
Therefore, you have no evidence.

The phrase in green is what they are taking for granted; and it accounts for why they think their conclusion in the enthymeme-type syllogism should be compelling to rational people. But they have not thought through or defended their suppressed (green) premise, so they are unaware that they are not being sufficiently logical to make their case. If they saw the complete syllogism they're making, they'd see they'd made a fallacy. They might be making a "Begging the Question" fallacy, or a "Hasty Generalization" fallacy, but no rational Theist will find their argument more than bare prejudice, unless they supply proof for their tacit supposition, the hidden premise.

I actually think that's how you're arguing at the moment. That's why I was hoping you'd look up the logic stuff. It will save us both frustration, and the mistake of thinking each other irrational simply for disagreeing. It will make our tacit premises manifest to each other.

[davidm]

I know plenty about logic and I know what enthymemes are.

People who are not familiar with logic tend to argue in what's called "enthymemes," which are syllogisms with only two terms expressed -- a single premise and a conclusion -- but with some tacit, often unconscious premise taken for granted. For example, someone who argues like this:

You are a Theist,
Therefore, you have no evidence.

Is actually arguing like this:

You are a Theist.
Theists cannot have evidence.
Therefore, you have no evidence.

The phrase in green is what they are taking for granted; and it accounts for why they think their conclusion in the enthymeme-type syllogism should be compelling to rational people. But they have not thought through or defended their suppressed (green) premise, so they are unaware that they are not being sufficiently logical to make their case. If they saw the complete syllogism they're making, they'd see they'd made a fallacy. They might be making a "Begging the Question" fallacy, or a "Hasty Generalization" fallacy, but no rational Theist will find their argument more than bare prejudice, unless they supply proof for their tacit supposition, the hidden premise.

I actually think that's how you're arguing at the moment. That's why I was hoping you'd look up the logic stuff.

Well maybe you should look up the logic stuff, because first, I don't think anyone here is arguing, "You are a theist, therefore you have no evidence." This argument is already invalid even without recourse to the hidden premise. And the hidden premise is simply false -- of course theists can have evidence for their claims. They just don't -- not because they are theists, and certainly not because they can't have evidence.

You folks just don't have the evidence, and that is all anyone here is saying. If you would present some, we'd be happy to consider it.

[Immanuel Can]

...you only mean your own view.

But of course! Why would anyone advocate a view they simply didn't believe at all?

Oh, absolutely. I marvel that it took us so long to establish that. Yes, have always been assuming that, and make no apology for it.

It would have been established sooner if instead of 'theists' you had written 'I' and 'me'.

But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational. I also have been pointing out what rational Atheists are obligated to believe, if they wish to be rational with their Atheism. So I was speaking of what groups must believe, given the premises upon which their worldview is built. That is why I wrote:

Non sequitur. I'm speaking of the proposition that God exists, which if true, will be true for everyone -- even Atheists -- regardless of my personal beliefs.

And can you prove that is the case?

It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not.

So you also believe that something that "exists" in reality will "exist" for all persons, regardless of their beliefs about it. And so does every sensible person.

No, that would only be true if I posited a God as merely material. Material entities have specific location, extension and so forth: entities with metaphysical properties do not.

'Merely material' ? Does that mean that God is 'partly material'?

No. It means that God is capable of producing evidences in the material world, because he is not less real than the reality we have; He is far more. Of course, that has to be true if He's the Creator of reality. He must be a sufficient Cause for reality. Thus He must be bigger than it.

Our reality is temporary; His is the permanent truth, from which the present, transient reality is merely derived.

How do you know 'God says so'? You say theists can get the objective facts wrong, so why can't you?

it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.

The secular Jewish physicist Michael Polanyi made this case brilliantly back in the 1960s. I refer you to his work, if you want to see the arguments for that fleshed out. But that insight is far from exclusive to Theists.

For example, one of the fundamental confessions in Judaism (and in Islam) is that of their being one God. That means that either the Polytheists are right, or the Jews are right, or if God didn't exist, both would be wrong. But one thing we can know for certain: it is logically absurd to say that they are both right. That's logically impossible, by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I do not see where that gets you. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies if two propositions are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The examples you gave are not jointly exhaustive, since there are further possibilities, for example that God does not exist at all.

Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...

If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.

If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.

If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.

However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.

So are you saying the fact that people agree, or disagree, is significant or not?

It is significant of the fact that they CAN agree, but not of the question of whether or not when they agree they've got the truth. That's a different question. I was simply debunking your claim that we're all unique in perspective, not promising you a road to the truth through their agreement. That would be Bandwagon Fallacy.

Non-sequitur. There are non-physical, objective facts. For example, "Child abuse is wrong," is a value judgment, but I hope we both believe it's objectively true.

The way you phrase it of course begs the question, since to call it 'abuse' already includes a value judgement. If we understand English we will understand that 'abuse' means 'treat badly' - but we might not agree what forms of treatment should be called 'abuse'.

Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."

But in point of fact, I rested nothing on the word "abuse." I did not intend it to convince you. I was merely pointing out that there are actions that you and I both think are morally repugnant...and I hope I was right. Call them what you will.

But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.

This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.

But the experiential is also an important argument for me, though my experience cannot be conveyed to you. You could, however, have your own experience with God. Whether you do or don't will be your own decision, not mine.

So is that the nature of your objective evidence?

No. See above.

So when you say your own beliefs provide you with a basis for an objective morality, that basis is your belief. That something is moral - because you think it is moral.

No. Morality is what God says is moral. It depends on revelation of the moral facts, not on my personal disposition. That's a prejudice of our modern world: everybody thinks that the only thing morality can mean is "whatever I personally believe it is." Christians do not believe that. Nor does any genuinely moral person. But moral Atheists cannot explain rationally why they believe that.

OK, but I do not see how the fact that you think a particular way is evidence that people who think differently to you are wrong.

Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...

Note that we don't even have to say which side of those claims you personally prefer!. If you wanted to kill babies, to lie, or to be a paedophile, you'd still have to believe the same thing: that the other side was wrong. It's simply a matter of understanding logic. Both cannot be right. It's impossible. Aristotle's Law.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think anyone here is arguing, "You are a theist, therefore you have no evidence."

Actually, I've run into it here repeatedly. People think that "faith" must mean "no evidence." Their thinking, then, is that anytime a Theist says "faith" they must mean "believing in things you cannot prove," or even "believing in things you know aren't true." Amazingly clueless of them, I'll admit: but they do it.

You folks just don't have the evidence, and that is all anyone here is saying. If you would present some, we'd be happy to consider it.

That's simple nonsense. You talk about "apologetics." Well, apologetics would be impossible without evidences. And if you know anything about the field of apologetics, you know that such evidences exist. But I suspect that the fact is simply that you don't like the evidences, because you don't regard them as strong (for some reason) or because you don't like what they imply...not because there aren't any.

[davidm]

This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.

Well, see, this is where atheists disagree with you, pretty much across the board.

The nearest to a logical argument for God is the Ontological Argument, and it does not work. Not sure what you mean by an analytic argument in this context; maybe you could provide an example? Empirical evidence -- none that I know of. If by experiential you mean private experience, that isn't evidence, at least not in the scientific sense, where evidence must be publicly shared and subject to evaluation. Same with revelatory. It think the "moral argument" is what you're trying to make here, and it's not persuasive in the least.

As to Kaalam, that was a corrective to other cosmological arguments that were self-refuting; a repair. It doesn't work, but I suppose we could discuss that separately if you wish. By empirical evidence, possibly you are thinking of the fine-turning argument. That would also be a separate discussion, but I can't help but note for now that the fine-tuning argument and Kalaam are in direct conflict, yet theists often invoke both.

[Immanuel Can]

You are talking about moral evil i.e. the suffering that men cause to men. Natural evil is immensely worse; see how human life, and all life departs eventually, see also natural disasters in the interim before the big death of all.

No. I'm taking about both.

The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is well enough known and if not surely we can all Google it! And I have not misread it . This parable explains the infinite mercy of love. I just cannot believe that you will lower yourself to quibble about the unusual title I gave to 'labourers'.

Normally, this parable is referred to as the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard," as you found out. If you Google it, you will discover that Jesus Christ spoke many parables of an agrarian nature, many involving "workers" of different kinds. So nobody could possibly be expected to know which of the many you meant.

Explain to me how the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (presumably you mean Mark 12, I assume?) shows "the infinite mercy of love." That's not a common reading of that parable, apparently.

(Belinda)The parables of Jesus can be used by unbelievers in a supernatural God.

(Immanuel)"Used"? How, and for what?

(Belinda)The answer would be too long for this forum. If you like to start a thread about some particular parable's interpretation please do so.

Then I don't believe there is any legitimate such "use." I think you could explain it very easily, if there were.

(Belinda) But naturalism provides an atheist like me with the rationale for ethics. Naturalism explains how we men are social animals, artificially bred, who experience the need to care for each other. Some of this need to care for each other is our ancient nature as nurturers of our vulnerable young, and some is our social nature which is facilitated by reason.

Show that, because Social Darwinists or Randians think you're bluffing. So does Nietzsche. They say that the truth is struggle and power, and morality is just a way one power-group gets to dominate others. The "natural" fact is "survival of the fittest." And the "fittest" is the person who can get OTHERS to practice morality or sociability, but make strategic exceptions for him or herself -- and live "beyond good and evil."

Reason does not support your view more than theirs. Reason is like maths, in that it is a universal method, but not a particular, limited set of conclusions. If you feed bad premises into reason, you get bad outcomes. That's what the Social Darwinists, Randians and Nietzsche have demonstrated for you. They are being quite reasonable, as reasonable as you. They too are "facilitated by reason." But their suppositions and ontology take them a different way.

Many people might say they read "nature" far better than you do. How would you show they don't?

[davidm]

I don't think anyone here is arguing, "You are a theist, therefore you have no evidence."

Actually, I've run into it here repeatedly. People think that "faith" must mean "no evidence." Their thinking, then, is that anytime a Theist says "faith" they must mean "believing in things you cannot prove," or even "believing in things you know aren't true." Amazingly clueless of them, I'll admit: but they do it.

But you didn't use the world "faith" in your demonstration syllogisms, just the word "evidence."

You must understand that for scientists and naturalists, evidence is something tangible that can be checked: There is evidence for water on Mars because of x. There is evidence that the special theory of relativity is true because the observed behavior of Mercury conforms to the prediction of the theory. Like that. You have no such evidence for god.

You may say that faith is evidence-based, and so fine; but then present the evidence that justifies the faith.

It is true -- as many scientists are apparently unaware -- that there is a faith-based element to their enterprise as well. Science is theory-laden, which means it is shot through with philosophical presuppositions that are usually scientifically untestable. There is also the notorious problem of induction to grapple with. But despite this, somehow, science gets results. We are talking on the Internet because of science, not because we prayed for the Internet and god granted it to us. (Which is not to say that I believe science and religious beliefs are incompatible -- unlike atheists like the biologist Jerry Coyne, I think they are compatible. I just don't think religious belief is true.

[davidm]

Show that, because Social Darwinists or Randians think you're bluffing. So does Nietzsche. They say that the truth is struggle and power, and morality is just a way one power-group gets to dominate others. The "natural" fact is "survival of the fittest." And the "fittest" is the person who can get OTHERS to practice morality or sociability, but make strategic exceptions for him or herself -- and live "beyond good and evil."

This is NOT what "fittest" means in evolutionary biology. Social Darwinism finds no support in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.

[Immanuel Can]

You may say that faith is evidence-based, and so fine; but then present the evidence that justifies the faith.

So you accuse me of being an "apologist," and then you say "there's no such thing as an apologetic"?

I'm no longer sure what you're saying at all. You must have some familiarity with the evidences, surely...anyway, if you've forgotten, I've listed the types in one of my messages just above.

It is true -- as many scientists are apparently unaware -- that there is a faith-based element to their enterprise as well. Science is theory-laden, which means it is shot through with philosophical presuppositions that are usually scientifically untestable.

Quite so. For example, how can science proceed, if the scientist does not take a certain set of things for granted, such as "The external world actually exists, and is not merely an illusion," or "Causality demonstrated in one case can be generalized to future cases," or "My experiment wasn't a fluke." That latter one isn't always right, even; but it's necessary for a scientist to believe it before he can draw any conclusions -- even the conclusion that more trials of that experiment are warranted.

There is also the notorious problem of induction to grapple with. But despite this, somehow, science gets results.

I don't think induction is a "problem." It's a method, that's all. And it's a very good one, even though we have to admit that its outcomes are only probably (but never absolutely certainly) true. High probability is a very good thing -- much better than low probability -- especially when absolute certainty is just not available.

We are talking on the Internet because of science, not because we prayed for the Internet and god granted it to us.

I disagree. I would say that not only is there an internet because of God (in the sense that God provides human beings with powers of creativity and allows them to innovate with them), but that without God, there wouldn't even be a "you." So the ONLY reason "we" are talking is because of God, I would argue.

[Immanuel Can]

Social Darwinism finds no support in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.

Lots of people think you're quite wrong about that. The whole field of eugenics presupposed it. So did antebellum slave owners. So did the Nazis, obviously.

How do you prove them wrong?

[davidm]

You may say that faith is evidence-based, and so fine; but then present the evidence that justifies the faith.

So you accuse me of being an "apologist," and then you say "there's no such thing as an apologetic"?

I'm no longer sure what you're saying at all. You must have some familiarity with the evidences, surely...anyway, if you've forgotten, I've listed the types in one of my messages just above.

And I responded to that post. Did you miss it?

It is true -- as many scientists are apparently unaware -- that there is a faith-based element to their enterprise as well. Science is theory-laden, which means it is shot through with philosophical presuppositions that are usually scientifically untestable.

Quite so. For example, how can science proceed, if the scientist does not take a certain set of things for granted, such as "The external world actually exists, and is not merely an illusion," or "Causality demonstrated in one case can be generalized to future cases," or "My experiment wasn't a fluke." That latter one isn't always right, even; but it's necessary for a scientist to believe it before he can draw any conclusions -- even the conclusion that more trials of that experiment are warranted.

I agree with you -- which is why I raised the point myself! I can add further examples -- theory underdetermination, and the demarcation problem. In the case of the latter, the inability to solve this problem rendered the judge's conclusion in the Kitzmiller case -- that Intelligent Design is not science -- wrong. This decision was cheered by most naturalists, scientists, atheists, etc. but not by me. The atheist philosopher Brad Monton had a good paper on the flaws in the judge's ruling; I'll look it up when I have some time.

There is also the notorious problem of induction to grapple with. But despite this, somehow, science gets results.

I don't think induction is a "problem." It's a method, that's all. And it's a very good one, even though we have to admit that its outcomes are only probably (but never absolutely certainly) true. High probability is a very good thing -- much better than low probability -- especially when absolute certainty is just not available.

I agree.

We are talking on the Internet because of science, not because we prayed for the Internet and god granted it to us.

I disagree. I would say that not only is there an internet because of God (in the sense that God provides human beings with powers of creativity and allows them to innovate with them), but that without God, there wouldn't even be a "you." So the ONLY reason "we" are talking is because of God, I would argue.

And I would say that there is an internet because there is a universe and it conduces to us being here. No universe, no us. I stop at the universe (which we can observe, test and measure, within the admittedly limited boundaries of our sensory and cognitive architecture) whereas you push a step back to invoke God, which we cannot observe, test or measure.

[davidm]

Social Darwinism finds no support in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.

Lots of people think you're quite wrong about that. The whole field of eugenics presupposed it. So did antebellum slave owners. So did the Nazis, obviously.

How do you prove them wrong?

I can prove them wrong quite easily, but look: You mention antebellum slave owners. What Good Book did those folks use to justify slavery?

If you say they were wrong to use that Good Book to justify slavery, then I reply that Social Darwinists are wrong to invoke Darwin. They don't know what they are talking about.