Morality Defined

[Topspin]

because Japaneese are poor and weak

 

[AnyOldIron]

God is not intended to "explain" things, although that has always been your contention for why he exists. You simply proved by this, it is an invalid argument.

Do you deny that 'god', or the concept of 'god' has been used to explain natural phenomenon? From the ancient Greeks' belief that Zeus controlled storms, for example, through to speciation?

This is hard to deny. History shows it true. And history shows that this manifestation of 'god', as the god that has filled the gaps in our understanding, has gradually been eroded as our empirical knowledge has increased. Now even the mainstream religious (for example the papacy) only have god as some ambigious 'first cause' for evolution.

Now explain how this argument is invalid? The conclusion is drawn from the premises?

Whatever you say, but the fact remains, 96% of this planet believes in something greater than self. Even with all the "observations" and scientific findings, dispelling of ancient myths, wars to extinguish religious belief, there are still 96% of the inhabitants of this planet who firmly believe in something greater than self.

Two points.

Firstly, even if 100% of the Earth's population believed in 'god', it wouldn't therefore mean that such a 'god' existed. Truth is not a democracy. If everybody in the world believed that up was down, would it be true?

Secondly, as I mentioned, 'God, the great comforter' is still very much alive. Humans are weak, and it is hard to accept the nihilistic reality of an amoral universe.

No, I don't see a thing wrong with MY logic. I simply stated that we don't know everything, and shouldn't discount possibilities of what we may not yet understand. What is flawed about that? Isn't that at the root of scientific principle? How arrogant are you to believe, since you can prove where storms come from, it means it's proof there is no God?

You are presenting a strawman, I didn't state that 'since you can prove where storms come from, it means it's proof there is no God?' or any variation of that. I stated that that we once attributed storms to the actions of 'god' was an example of the erosion of 'god' as 'god of the gaps'.

As to the main thrust of your argument. Would you believe that it is possible for a teapot to be in orbit around Pluto, simply on the basis that we don't know if there is?

Nope... look around, there are plenty of examples. If you are too ignorant to believe it, nothing I can show you will make you believe it.

But I know people who are successful, happy, moral, balanced and mentally well and have no religious faith.


Let's stop a moment and correct an inaccurate attribute you keep tagging onto my comments, okay? I have never said X, therefore, Y... That is your evaluation of things I have said, and it is intellectually dishonest and wrong to continue your inaccurate assessment. I've not claimed anything "must be" anything, just that there is a possibility, and it behooves us as humans to not close our minds to possibility, as you have done.

Ok, if you want to take the soft tense...

That things are complex it is possible that a designer created them.

Well, to be truthful, anything is possible. It could be possible that the diversity of life could come from the tears of the mythical coo coo bird.

So then, how do we differentiate between these possibilities?

The method that has demonstrated itself the best throughout history is through repeated observation. Repeated observation has demonstrated that speciation arrived through evolution through natural selection.

You could then claim that, using the soft tense you requested, 'god' could possibly have been the first cause of evolution but that would prove my point as to the retreat of 'god of the gaps'.

How do you show an analogy to be false? I don't get that.

By showing that what applies for one doesn't apply for the other.

Because that is basically ALL you've done through this entire post! All I have stated is that we should consider any and all possibilities, and you have twisted it into something you can bash and trash and reject. YOU are the one being blindly ignorant here, not me. I am willing to listen to any and all ideas, to consider any and all possibilities, including that of an intelligent designer... you, sir, are the one who is not willing to consider this.

Calm down Dixie. I haven't been 'bashing' you, I have backed my arguments with reason. If someone disagrees with you, and they will on a discussion group, that isn't 'bashing' you.

I am willing to listen to all ideas, judge them on the supporting arguments and evidence. The problem is that the notion of ID is a weak idea, with weak supporting arguments and no evidence. It has nothing other than attribution.

 

[AnyOldIron]

No, they didn't, and couldn't have. Nature and the laws of Darwin prohibit it. You can believe this if you like, but you can't prove it with rational thought.

Read this....

Amazon.com: The Selfish Gene: Richard Dawkins: Books

It explains.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

God is not intended to "explain" things, although that has always been your contention for why he exists. You simply proved by this, it is an invalid argument.

Do you deny that 'god', or the concept of 'god' has been used to explain natural phenomenon? From the ancient Greeks' belief that Zeus controlled storms, for example, through to speciation?

This is hard to deny. History shows it true. And history shows that this manifestation of 'god', as the god that has filled the gaps in our understanding, has gradually been eroded as our empirical knowledge has increased. Now even the mainstream religious (for example the papacy) only have god as some ambigious 'first cause' for evolution.

Now explain how this argument is invalid? The conclusion is drawn from the premises?

Science doesn't draw conclusions from the premise, why would you?
Spiritual belief has not eroded, it has consistently grown in mankind. More people believe in something greater than self today, than ever in our history.

I don't deny God has been used to explain the unexplained, but that doesn't mean that is the purpose or intent of belief in a God. If that were the reason, we would see very few people today, practicing any form of spiritual belief.

Whatever you say, but the fact remains, 96% of this planet believes in something greater than self. Even with all the "observations" and scientific findings, dispelling of ancient myths, wars to extinguish religious belief, there are still 96% of the inhabitants of this planet who firmly believe in something greater than self.

Two points.

Firstly, even if 100% of the Earth's population believed in 'god', it wouldn't therefore mean that such a 'god' existed. Truth is not a democracy. If everybody in the world believed that up was down, would it be true?

Secondly, as I mentioned, 'God, the great comforter' is still very much alive. Humans are weak, and it is hard to accept the nihilistic reality of an amoral universe.

Yes, it is hard to accept, isn't that curious to you? Again, I have not made an "X, therefore, Y" argument, as you seem to want to keep indicating. I have simply introduced "possibility" into your otherwise closed mind.

No, I don't see a thing wrong with MY logic. I simply stated that we don't know everything, and shouldn't discount possibilities of what we may not yet understand. What is flawed about that? Isn't that at the root of scientific principle? How arrogant are you to believe, since you can prove where storms come from, it means it's proof there is no God?

You are presenting a strawman, I didn't state that 'since you can prove where storms come from, it means it's proof there is no God?' or any variation of that. I stated that that we once attributed storms to the actions of 'god' was an example of the erosion of 'god' as 'god of the gaps'.

As to the main thrust of your argument. Would you believe that it is possible for a teapot to be in orbit around Pluto, simply on the basis that we don't know if there is?

I would not say that it is impossible for a teapot to be orbiting Pluto. It is unlikely, since man invented and created teapots and we haven't been to Pluto recently, but anything is possible. I don't close my mind to possibility, and when I encounter somewhat intelligent people who have, I try to point it out to them. No strawmen, just logic.

Nope... look around, there are plenty of examples. If you are too ignorant to believe it, nothing I can show you will make you believe it.

But I know people who are successful, happy, moral, balanced and mentally well and have no religious faith.

True, but I never argued you had to have God to be happy, moral, and balanced. I simply stated a fact, that people with a strong spiritual conviction, are more happy, more successful, and better balanced. This is evidenced in the number of suicides, clinical depression, and instability among people who have no spiritual connection. The only thing it "proves" is that spiritual conviction is more than some trivial way of explaining the unexplained.

Let's stop a moment and correct an inaccurate attribute you keep tagging onto my comments, okay? I have never said X, therefore, Y... That is your evaluation of things I have said, and it is intellectually dishonest and wrong to continue your inaccurate assessment. I've not claimed anything "must be" anything, just that there is a possibility, and it behooves us as humans to not close our minds to possibility, as you have done.

Ok, if you want to take the soft tense...

That things are complex it is possible that a designer created them.

Well, to be truthful, anything is possible. It could be possible that the diversity of life could come from the tears of the mythical coo coo bird.

So then, how do we differentiate between these possibilities?

The method that has demonstrated itself the best throughout history is through repeated observation. Repeated observation has demonstrated that speciation arrived through evolution through natural selection.

You could then claim that, using the soft tense you requested, 'god' could possibly have been the first cause of evolution but that would prove my point as to the retreat of 'god of the gaps'.

Not just that things are complex, but things are complex in an intricate way that would almost prohibit the possibility of randomness. The problem with your argument is, you have never "observed" evolution. You have a theory, you have an idea of how you think it all happened, but your idea is full of gaps and unexplained mysteries. This doesn't mean my argument becomes valid, just that your argument has some flaws.

In all of our observations, we can not show how any cross-species evolution occurred, there is no evidence to support this. Through the Cambrian period, we can see how various species evolved, but within their own form of life, never a cross-species transformation. There is also the mystery of the complex eye, which didn't appear until the Cambrian period. So there are many unanswered questions, and while it doesn't "prove" there is a God, it doesn't "disprove" it either. The possibility of intelligent design still remains.

How do you show an analogy to be false? I don't get that.

By showing that what applies for one doesn't apply for the other.

But you haven't shown that. You have an opinion and a theory, but these are not "proof" of anything. To me, the watch analogy is legitimate, because it defines the argument in terms we can understand. You argue that the various elements washed upon the shore and created the watch over millions of years, and I argue that something or someone made the watch. Neither of us can prove our theory, but neither theory can be disproved.

Because that is basically ALL you've done through this entire post! All I have stated is that we should consider any and all possibilities, and you have twisted it into something you can bash and trash and reject. YOU are the one being blindly ignorant here, not me. I am willing to listen to any and all ideas, to consider any and all possibilities, including that of an intelligent designer... you, sir, are the one who is not willing to consider this.

Calm down Dixie. I haven't been 'bashing' you, I have backed my arguments with reason. If someone disagrees with you, and they will on a discussion group, that isn't 'bashing' you.

I am willing to listen to all ideas, judge them on the supporting arguments and evidence. The problem is that the notion of ID is a weak idea, with weak supporting arguments and no evidence. It has nothing other than attribution.

You've backed your arguments with closed-minded opinions, and that is all. You are unwilling to consider any possibility of an intelligent designer, because you don't believe in God, and refuse to accept any possibility which may include one.

There is just as much "evidence" of intelligent design, as a theory that we all evolved from a single-cell organism following the big bang. Life is simply too complex and diverse to conclude it all just randomly happened. Even Albert Einstein acknowledged this.

 

[Kamala Trump]

"Something greater than self" is not necessarily religion.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It's not closed minded to not believe in unproven lies.

As far as anything scientific goes, you're completely retarded and out of your element.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Dixie is willing to believe in magical god beings without proof, but for cross species evolution he demands hard evidence.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie is willing to believe in magical god beings without proof, but for cross species evolution he demands hard evidence.

I would settle for ANY evidence.


I'm not sure I believe in "magical god beings" and I don't think that is what I have articulated. You see, your argument is FOR something and AGAINST something, like the closed-minded person you are, but my argument is, we don't know anything for certain, there is a lot we don't understand, and anything is possible, including intelligent design. You reject this open-mindedness, because you want people to believe in your closed-minded assumptions and Atheism, and nothing else can be given any consideration.

 

[Jarod]

The idea that man evolved from an ape is completely false, and is
laughable.

It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
All hominid fossils are clearly human or clearly ape.
Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. The proposed mechanism is mutations, yet all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy

Noone ever said man evolved from an ape... you idiot.

The theory of evolution is that men and ape have evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I would settle for ANY evidence.


I'm not sure I believe in "magical god beings" and I don't think that is what I have articulated. You see, your argument is FOR something and AGAINST something, like the closed-minded person you are, but my argument is, we don't know anything for certain, there is a lot we don't understand, and anything is possible, including intelligent design. You reject this open-mindedness, because you want people to believe in your closed-minded assumptions and Atheism, and nothing else can be given any consideration.

My argument is that morality doesn't depend on the existence of god, or religion. The roots of human morality are observable in the natural world and is merely an extension of the cooperative and beneficial behaviors seen in some social animals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Noone ever said man evolved from an ape... you idiot.

The theory of evolution is that men and ape have evolved from a common ancestor.

Actually, evolving from an ape is much more desirable than what you are saying. You maintain the apes and humans evolved from something even less advanced than the ape. Evolving from an ape would actually be a step up from what you believe.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My argument is that morality doesn't depend on the existence of god, or religion. The roots of human morality are observable in the natural world and is merely an extension of the cooperative and beneficial behaviors seen in some social animals.

Morality does depend on faith and trust, we have established this, and you have admitted this yourself. It is not a physical attribute, so it isn't something that could be acquired through the theory of 'natural selection.' If anything, it is an 'artificial selection' but this doesn't answer the question of how it originated.

Your theory is, it came from the natural world observations of man, but the natural world is devoid of human morality. It is a unique human characteristic. In fact, most of the elements of natural animal morality, precludes any compassion or sense of right and wrong. 'Survival of the fittest' always overrides any 'moral' behavior in any animal in nature, other than humans.

Cooperation and mutual benefit are all fine and well, but that isn't a definition of Morality. Army ants are cooperative and work for mutual benefit, but I don't see them contributing to the United Way or building houses for the poor. Wolves may share their food with other wolves in mutually beneficial cooperation, but if food becomes scarce, they will abandon this practice and eat each other, and never have a guilty conscience about it.

So the so-called 'morality' we observe in the animal world, is quite different from human morality. Now, what you are arguing, this observation of mutual benefit and cooperative behavior in nature, may have been at the root of tribal spiritual beliefs or rituals, which may have been the catalyst for the faith and trust which enabled human morality. In any event, it is clear that human morality differs sharply from any other animal 'morality' you, or our ancestors would have observed.

Let me explain why your mind is so closed on this... You don't believe in spirituality, religion, or God. To you, there is no need for such nonsense, and it is nothing but silly superstition to you. The explanation you've convinced yourself of, regarding spirituality and religion, is this was something man adopted to explain the unexplained, like a security blanket for the mind. You see no fundamental purpose for it whatsoever, and refuse to acknowledge any. So, when the debate is about the origins of moral behavior in man, you immediately close your mind to any possibility regarding spirituality, because it doesn't fit your personal preconceptions.

I am not here to argue for religion, but spiritual belief in mankind is very strong, and always has been. Spiritual rituals and beliefs center around the concept of believing in something greater than self, and trusting this belief. Through this faith, you can look at your fellow man in a different perspective. You develop "Empathy" and "Compassion" for them. It is through this developed human sentiment, I believe human Morality emerged.

I can't prove this, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me, than humans observing nature, because nature dictates the ultimate 'morality' is self-preservation. Human morality is most often a selfless act. Wolves exhibit a "moral code" of mutually beneficial and cooperative behavior as you described, but they will also eat their young to preserve food/resources for the pack. I know you are pro-abortion, but wouldn't it be totally opposed to human morality to literally eat your newborn? I think it would, but that's me and my silly moral code based on spiritual beliefs in a higher power. Your results may be different.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Morality does depend on faith and trust, we have established this, and you have admitted this yourself. It is not a physical attribute, so it isn't something that could be acquired through the theory of 'natural selection.' If anything, it is an 'artificial selection' but this doesn't answer the question of how it originated.

Behaviors and capacities for behavior, like a bigger brain, ARE subject to the forces of natural selection.

Your theory is, it came from the natural world observations of man, but the natural world is devoid of human morality.

That's not my theory actually, It came from a gradual elaboration and shifting of man's day to day interactions with fellow men, or pre-men, before they evolved that far.

It is a unique human characteristic.

It is not. Many animals exhibit cooperative behavior.

In fact, most of the elements of natural animal morality, precludes any compassion or sense of right and wrong. 'Survival of the fittest' always overrides any 'moral' behavior in any animal in nature, other than humans.

They don't view it as right and wrong, it's just that propensities for cooperation have been selected for because of the success of mutually beneficial behaviors.

Cooperation and mutual benefit are all fine and well, but that isn't a definition of Morality.

Yes it is.

Army ants are cooperative and work for mutual benefit, but I don't see them contributing to the United Way or building houses for the poor.

But they still exhibit a moral code.

Wolves may share their food with other wolves in mutually beneficial cooperation, but if food becomes scarce, they will abandon this practice and eat each other, and never have a guilty conscience about it.

Humans often abandon their morality too when things get bad or they get stressed out.

So the so-called 'morality' we observe in the animal world, is quite different from human morality.

No it's not.

Now, what you are arguing, this observation of mutual benefit and cooperative behavior in nature, may have been at the root of tribal spiritual beliefs or rituals, which may have been the catalyst for the faith and trust which enabled human morality.

I already explained how that is a mischaracterization of my position. I shall allow your idiocy on this point to be my rebuttal.

In any event, it is clear that human morality differs sharply from any other animal 'morality' you, or our ancestors would have observed.

It's not SHARPLY different. That's just something you keep baselessy asserting.

Let me explain why your mind is so closed on this... You don't believe in spirituality, religion, or God. To you, there is no need for such nonsense, and it is nothing but silly superstition to you. The explanation you've convinced yourself of, regarding spirituality and religion, is this was something man adopted to explain the unexplained, like a security blanket for the mind. You see no fundamental purpose for it whatsoever, and refuse to acknowledge any. So, when the debate is about the origins of moral behavior in man, you immediately close your mind to any possibility regarding spirituality, because it doesn't fit your personal preconceptions.

There are some good aspects to the main organized religions, but mostly they've been perverted by globalist fascism olam ha ba seekers in the modern era.

I am not here to argue for religion, but spiritual belief in mankind is very strong, and always has been. Spiritual rituals and beliefs center around the concept of believing in something greater than self, and trusting this belief. Through this faith, you can look at your fellow man in a different perspective. You develop "Empathy" and "Compassion" for them. It is through this developed human sentiment, I believe human Morality emerged.

Developed human sentiment is not religion, nor does it have anything to do with religion. I think you're trying to agree through the backdoor.

I can't prove this, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me, than humans observing nature, because nature dictates the ultimate 'morality' is self-preservation. Human morality is most often a selfless act. Wolves exhibit a "moral code" of mutually beneficial and cooperative behavior as you described, but they will also eat their young to preserve food/resources for the pack. I know you are pro-abortion, but wouldn't it be totally opposed to human morality to literally eat your newborn? I think it would, but that's me and my silly moral code based on spiritual beliefs in a higher power. Your results may be different.

I already exlained how "humans OBSERVING nature" has never been my hypothesis. I have only mentioned similar dynamics in nature, but I do not believe man OBSERVING these is the cause of his morality.

The cause of human morality is an understanding gained through unspecified means that cooperation enhances survival in many ways.

You = fisted again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Behaviors and capacities for behavior, like a bigger brain, ARE subject to the forces of natural selection.

A bigger brain doesn't magically make things happen with natural selection that wouldn't have otherwise happened. Let's not get 'far fetched' here.

That's not my theory actually, It came from a gradual elaboration and shifting of man's day to day interactions with fellow men, or pre-men, before they evolved that far.

Before human morality, there wasn't much interaction with fellow man, other than to kill them and take their shit. This is what happens in nature all around us, or haven't you noticed?

It is not. Many animals exhibit cooperative behavior.

Yes, but simple cooperative behavior is not human morality.

They don't view it as right and wrong, it's just that propensities for cooperation have been selected for because of the success of mutually beneficial behaviors.

Human morality is based on a delineation between "right and wrong" or "good and bad" or "acceptable and non-acceptable" behaviors. Without this delineation, there simply is no "human" morality. Animals do not practice this, their moral code does not include this value or delineation. We only call certain animal behaviors "moral" because it is easier for us to comprehend. It is actually an instinctual behavior, not found in humans, and unrelated to human morality.

Yes it is.

No, it's not.

But they still exhibit a moral code.

Not human morality.

Humans often abandon their morality too when things get bad or they get stressed out.

Yes, but they are consciously aware they are abandoning their morality and have the experience of guilt over it. Animals do not.

No it's not.

Yes, it is.

I already explained how that is a mischaracterization of my position. I shall allow your idiocy on this point to be my rebuttal.

You've explained nothing in this entire thread.

It's not SHARPLY different. That's just something you keep baselessy asserting.

Human morality is sharply different from animal morality, I don't have time to run down the list of differences for you, but I think anyone with an ounce of brains in their head, understands there is a major difference in the two.

There are some good aspects to the main organized religions, but mostly they've been perverted by globalist fascism olam ha ba seekers in the modern era.

Yadda...yadda...yadda.

Developed human sentiment is not religion, nor does it have anything to do with religion. I think you're trying to agree through the backdoor.

I haven't argued for religion. I believe religious practices came about long after humans exhibited human morality. In fact, human morality may have been the basis for the first religious beliefs. My argument centers around observations of clan/tribal rituals practiced in spiritual beliefs, which were present at the time.

I already exlained how "humans OBSERVING nature" has never been my hypothesis. I have only mentioned similar dynamics in nature, but I do not believe man OBSERVING these is the cause of his morality.

The cause of human morality is an understanding gained through unspecified means that cooperation enhances survival in many ways.

Unspecified means? What the fuck? You offer an explanation you expect to be taken seriously and your basis is "unspecified means?" The understanding came through experience and wisdom, but it originated with observations of other clans/tribes and their customs, which enabled trust and faith to make the informed determination that moral behavior would be reciprocal.

You = fisted again.

You=sucking my ass again!

 

[Kamala Trump]

So you say human morality precedded religious belief. You have found a way to agree with me while pretending to win.

Before you said human morality came from observing religious rituals.

I have won this thread, because now YOU agree with ME.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually there have been quite a few instances of humans running out of food and eating each other.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you say human morality precedded religious belief. You have found a way to agree with me while pretending to win.

Before you said human morality came from observing religious rituals.

I have won this thread, because now YOU agree with ME.

Religion is not Spirituality, do you have a hard time comprehending that? Before mankind developed religious dogma, he practiced Spirituality in a variety of ways, some included worshiping Gods. Various tribes had various degrees of Spirituality, and I suspect that Morality came through observations of other clans or tribes, exhibiting behaviors toward each other within their like-minded Spiritual cultures, and this is how it "evolved" as a human behavior.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually there have been quite a few instances of humans running out of food and eating each other.

Again, they understood they were doing something against their moral code, they were able to rationalize the behavior as being against their moral convictions, and from every report of this kind of thing, they had a very difficult time making that decision, and living with it afterward. This is what separates us from the rest of the animal world with regard to our morality, versus the 'morality' of other species. We have a consciousness about our action, an understanding of consequence for immoral acts, other animals don't.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Again, they understood they were doing something against their moral code, they were able to rationalize the behavior as being against their moral convictions, and from every report of this kind of thing, they had a very difficult time making that decision, and living with it afterward. This is what separates us from the rest of the animal world with regard to our morality, versus the 'morality' of other species. We have a consciousness about our action, an understanding of consequence for immoral acts, other animals don't.

You don't know what animals are feelilng or thinking. They may also feel some form of regret. Your opinion in based on unproven notions of anthropomorhpic exceptionalism.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Religion is not Spirituality, do you have a hard time comprehending that? Before mankind developed religious dogma, he practiced Spirituality in a variety of ways, some included worshiping Gods. Various tribes had various degrees of Spirituality, and I suspect that Morality came through observations of other clans or tribes, exhibiting behaviors toward each other within their like-minded Spiritual cultures, and this is how it "evolved" as a human behavior.

A distinction without a difference. Thanks for an empty constuction of pointlessness.

Various tribes had various degrees of spirituality? Are you sure? You're really out on a limb on that one.