Morality Defined

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes. It really is different. Scientific experiments can be reproduced, making them actual science. Religious experiences, burning bushes, commandments to kill your children, stone tablet exchange etc... are not reproducible, and just anecdotal. Mythology, if you will. It still ends in an ology, be happy they let it on campus.

Well, do you believe they can reproduce the origin of life? Do you believe they can reproduce evolution of all species? They can't even reproduce evolution of a single species, with the exception of bacteria and microbial life forms. So, there is absolutely no "test" or "experiment" we can do, to prove Evolution Theory. There is certainly no test to conclude origins of life.

You simply have devout faith in something, which is fine, most humans do... it's one of the unique attributes regarding our species.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Well, do you believe they can reproduce the origin of life? Do you believe they can reproduce evolution of all species? They can't even reproduce evolution of a single species, with the exception of bacteria and microbial life forms. So, there is absolutely no "test" or "experiment" we can do, to prove Evolution Theory. There is certainly no test to conclude origins of life.

It's too complex for a single experiment to prove or disprove. It's like disproving or proving all of reality. That's why evolution is known in science as a theory. The biology behind mechanism of gene transmission of traits has been proven conclusively though.

You simply have devout faith in something, which is fine, most humans do... it's one of the unique attributes regarding our species.

You can't read the minds of all animals, so you don't really know what they believe.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's too complex for a single experiment to prove or disprove. It's like disproving or proving all of reality. That's why evolution is known in science as a theory. The biology behind mechanism of gene transmission of traits has been proven conclusively though.

Make up your mind! You just said... "Yes. It really is different. Scientific experiments can be reproduced, making them actual science." Now, you tell me it's too complex for a single experiment. Sounds as if you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, or justify your faith and belief in something you simply can't explain... a lot like those Sky God worshipers, huh?

You can't read the minds of all animals, so you don't really know what they believe.

I don't need to read their minds, I can observe their behaviors, that is what Science is. Of course, we both know, science doesn't "prove" anything, so I can't prove animals don't have devout faith like humans, but the observations of their behaviors leads me to believe they don't. Just as I can observe your behaviors and determine you have devout faith in things you think are just too complex for Science to adequately explain. As I say, it's really nothing to be ashamed of, all humans have this attribute, you are no different. You just have faith in Theories, where other humans have faith in God.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Make up your mind! You just said... "Yes. It really is different. Scientific experiments can be reproduced, making them actual science." Now, you tell me it's too complex for a single experiment. Sounds as if you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, or justify your faith and belief in something you simply can't explain... a lot like those Sky God worshipers, huh?

Evolution is not based on an experiment. Evolution is not a scientific fact, but a theory, a rational one in my view. This does not mean that every crackpot theory out there that is also not scientific fact is as sound an idea as evolution.

I don't need to read their minds, I can observe their behaviors, that is what Science is. Of course, we both know, science doesn't "prove" anything, so I can't prove animals don't have devout faith like humans, but the observations of their behaviors leads me to believe they don't. Just as I can observe your behaviors and determine you have devout faith in things you think are just too complex for Science to adequately explain. As I say, it's really nothing to be ashamed of, all humans have this attribute, you are no different. You just have faith in Theories, where other humans have faith in God.

But science is not assuming you know what animals think. That's just stupidity.

Good day to you, nubbin' boy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Evolution is not based on an experiment. Evolution is not a scientific fact, but a theory, a rational one in my view. This does not mean that every crackpot theory out there that is also not scientific fact is as sound an idea as evolution.

Wow, you got it right for once! I can't believe I finally got one of you pinheads to admit ET is a theory and not a fact! Congratulations, you are beginning to think for yourself! I agree with you, Evolution is a rational theory, there is evidence to suggest it is valid, however, it doesn't address origin of life. ID is a theory to suggest an explanation for origin, and I view it as valid as well, nothing 'crackpot' about it whatsoever. Not only do I think ID legitimately explains human origin, I think it explains origin of all life, as well as the universe we know and partially understand. The scientific basis for this, is science itself, math, physics, chemistry, and the logical premise that predictability and pattern denote intelligent design, not randomness. As I have previously said, ID doesn't necessarily mean "GOD", but one could attribute the intelligence to a "god." I merely think the indications of intelligence are present, regardless of the source of that intelligence.

But science is not assuming you know what animals think. That's just stupidity.

Good day to you, nubbin' boy.

Science is complete assumption, because it never "proves" anything. The scientific study of animal behavior is very old, and many observations have been made. Based on those observations, we can be relatively certain of what animals "feel" or "think" based on their behaviors. I am very careful not to "assume to know" anything, because that leads to "conclusions" which are essentially "closed-mindedness" and contrary to science.

Based on our observations of animals other than humans, we don't see evidence of humanistic awareness and consciousness. We don't see evidence of animals practicing spirituality or religious faith, or human morality. Maybe they don't do this when they know they are being observed, however, we have observed them when they didn't know they were being watched, and still, we see no evidence to suggest this, so it's fairly well assumed they do not. If you wish to leave the door open on this, that is fine, after all, science can't prove things, so I can't guarantee you animals feel or think anything in particular. I do know, not a single horse, pig, cow, dog, cat, or goat, attended any church services this past Sunday, or any Sunday for that matter, so it seems they must be agnostic or Atheist in their beliefs, if they have any.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Wow, you got it right for once! I can't believe I finally got one of you pinheads to admit ET is a theory and not a fact!

But it is a more rational theory than the Intelligent Design, which is basically a false dilemma puffed into an ideology.

Congratulations, you are beginning to think for yourself! I agree with you, Evolution is a rational theory, there is evidence to suggest it is valid, however, it doesn't address origin of life. ID is a theory to suggest an explanation for origin, and I view it as valid as well, nothing 'crackpot' about it whatsoever.

It is not valid. It posits a creator when no actual evidence exists for one. Complex patterns in nature are not proof, nor are elegant and ingenious solutions to life's many problems.

It's crackpot when it tries to present itself as science.

Not only do I think ID legitimately explains human origin, I think it explains origin of all life, as well as the universe we know and partially understand.

Of course you say you think that. You're a propagandist for your theocratic new age noahide overlords.

The scientific basis for this, is science itself, math, physics, chemistry, and the logical premise that predictability and pattern denote intelligent design, not randomness.

That's a flawed premise, as I already mentioned. Patterns do not require a creator.

As I have previously said, ID doesn't necessarily mean "GOD", but one could attribute the intelligence to a "god." I merely think the indications of intelligence are present, regardless of the source of that intelligence.

i think youre a retarded queefsniffer.

Science is complete assumption, because it never "proves" anything. The scientific study of animal behavior is very old, and many observations have been made. Based on those observations, we can be relatively certain of what animals "feel" or "think" based on their behaviors.

No we can't. You're just making shit up again.

I am very careful not to "assume to know" anything, because that leads to "conclusions" which are essentially "closed-mindedness" and contrary to science.

That sounds just like you.

Based on our observations of animals other than humans, we don't see evidence of humanistic awareness and consciousness.

Yes we do.

We don't see evidence of animals practicing spirituality or religious faith, or human morality.

They do exhibit forms of cooperation. And from what I've seen of humans we're not THAT much more moral, actually.

Maybe they don't do this when they know they are being observed, however, we have observed them when they didn't know they were being watched, and still, we see no evidence to suggest this, so it's fairly well assumed they do not. If you wish to leave the door open on this, that is fine, after all, science can't prove things, so I can't guarantee you animals feel or think anything in particular. I do know, not a single horse, pig, cow, dog, cat, or goat, attended any church services this past Sunday, or any Sunday for that matter, so it seems they must be agnostic or Atheist in their beliefs, if they have any.

You're stupider than a rock.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But it is a more rational theory than the Intelligent Design, which is basically a false dilemma puffed into an ideology.

Not really, both are theories, one deals with changes in species, the other deals with origin of life. Both have legitimate evidence to support them, and neither is a proven fact. Both theories are rational, you just have more faith in one than the other, but that is okay, faith and trust is an inherently human attribute.

It is not valid. It posits a creator when no actual evidence exists for one. Complex patterns in nature are not proof, nor are elegant and ingenious solutions to life's many problems.

Life exists, therefore it had to be created by something, otherwise it wouldn't exist. I don't have to identify the person who built my car, to assume it was built by someone somewhere at some time. Complex predictable consistent patterns, are most certainly indicative of intelligence. We have never observed this phenomenon as the result of randomness, ever.

It's crackpot when it tries to present itself as science.

I've presented the Scientific basis, you just refuse to accept the Science because of your personal faith. You should learn to be more open minded and not allow your personal faith and beliefs enter into the thought process.

Of course you say you think that. You're a propagandist for your theocratic new age noahide overlords.

LOL... I am a Spiritualist, I have no ties or connections to any particular religion or religious dogma. I have not posted any kind of propaganda, just relative facts and science.

That's a flawed premise, as I already mentioned. Patterns do not require a creator.

Predictable, consistent, and intricate patterns, do indeed signify intelligence in design. If you have any example whatsoever, where complex intricate and consistent patterns exist as the result of randomness, please show them, or stop refuting this, you sound absurd.

i think youre a retarded queefsniffer.

It doesn't refute the point I made. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean a "God." Do you refute that point, or have a counter argument to present?

No we can't. You're just making shit up again.

Yes we can. As I said, many observations of animals have been made, and we know a great deal based on their behaviors. You can keep mouthing off "No, we can't!" all you like, that is not a counterpoint to my argument.

That sounds just like you.

Good, because I would hate to think someone else was posting under my name.

Yes we do.

No, we don't... again, not a valid refutation of my point. If you would like to introduce an opposing argument, you can do so, but simply saying "No we don't" is not a counterpoint, and has no validity or credibility in this debate.

They do exhibit forms of cooperation. And from what I've seen of humans we're not THAT much more moral, actually.

Animals sometimes cooperate, yes. However, animals do not show signs of human understanding of consequence. They don't exhibit rational thought the same as humans, they have no concept of human perceptions of moral 'right and wrong' at all, and for the most part, they operate on natural instinct and live in the moment. I know may immoral humans, but they are mostly the product of immoral environment and upbringing. Morality is a learned behavior, we all have the capacity for, but is subject to the environment and culture we live in. The mere fact that some humans are moral and some are not, shoots holes in any theory you may have about morality being some acquired evolutionary attribute of natural selection.

You're stupider than a rock.

I am actually responding to you with more than "no, it's not" so, if I am stupider than a rock, you are stupider than the dirt beneath the rock. Needless to say, our intelligence factors have nothing to do with this debate, and it is a simple diversionary tactic you think will suffice in the absence of intelligent input.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Not really, both are theories, one deals with changes in species, the other deals with origin of life. Both have legitimate evidence to support them, and neither is a proven fact. Both theories are rational, you just have more faith in one than the other, but that is okay, faith and trust is an inherently human attribute.

Wrong. Id is much flimsier. Patterns can just occur, without a creator. Complexity occurs, without a creator.

Life exists, therefore it had to be created by something, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Invalid syllogism.

I don't have to identify the person who built my car, to assume it was built by someone somewhere at some time. Complex predictable consistent patterns, are most certainly indicative of intelligence.

No they're not.

We have never observed this phenomenon as the result of randomness, ever.

yes, we have.

I've presented the Scientific basis, you just refuse to accept the Science because of your personal faith. You should learn to be more open minded and not allow your personal faith and beliefs enter into the thought process.

You have present shit-thinking mixed with hokum. I accept none of it.

LOL... I am a Spiritualist, I have no ties or connections to any particular religion or religious dogma. I have not posted any kind of propaganda, just relative facts and science.

You have posted neither.

Predictable, consistent, and intricate patterns, do indeed signify intelligence in design. If you have any example whatsoever, where complex intricate and consistent patterns exist as the result of randomness, please show them, or stop refuting this, you sound absurd.

They do not signify intelligence, they signify merely a pattern.

It doesn't refute the point I made. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean a "God." Do you refute that point, or have a counter argument to present?

Reality refutes the arguments you've made.

Yes we can. As I said, many observations of animals have been made, and we know a great deal based on their behaviors. You can keep mouthing off "No, we can't!" all you like, that is not a counterpoint to my argument.

It is a direct repudiation of your argument, with just as much backing as your initial argument.

Good, because I would hate to think someone else was posting under my name.



No, we don't... again, not a valid refutation of my point. If you would like to introduce an opposing argument, you can do so, but simply saying "No we don't" is not a counterpoint, and has no validity or credibility in this debate.

It is valid. I disagree with you. I have all credibility. You are cretinesque in nature.

Animals sometimes cooperate, yes. However, animals do not show signs of human understanding of consequence.

Some do.

They don't exhibit rational thought the same as humans, they have no concept of human perceptions of moral 'right and wrong' at all, and for the most part, they operate on natural instinct and live in the moment.

Except when they show signs of planning or cooperative mutually beneficial behavior, much like our own.

I know may immoral humans, but they are mostly the product of immoral environment and upbringing. Morality is a learned behavior, we all have the capacity for, but is subject to the environment and culture we live in. The mere fact that some humans are moral and some are not, shoots holes in any theory you may have about morality being some acquired evolutionary attribute of natural selection.

No it doesn't. You just wish it did.

I am actually responding to you with more than "no, it's not" so, if I am stupider than a rock, you are stupider than the dirt beneath the rock. Needless to say, our intelligence factors have nothing to do with this debate, and it is a simple diversionary tactic you think will suffice in the absence of intelligent input.

Wrong again. You're stupider than poop.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong. Id is much flimsier. Patterns can just occur, without a creator. Complexity occurs, without a creator.

If you can prove this, please do. If not, you have a theory, and one that defies rationality at that. One might even call it a "crackpot" theory. Anywhere we observe predictable consistent pattern, we also observe intelligence in design of that pattern. To my knowledge, we have never observed predictable and consistent complex patterns without the presence of intelligent input.

Invalid syllogism.

Not invalid at all. We do indeed exist, therefore something is responsible for our existence. It's called "logic" dumbass. Please tell me what your theory is for how we came into existence, along with the millions of other known life forms on Earth?

No they're not.

Example please?

yes, we have.

Example please?

They do not signify intelligence, they signify merely a pattern.

Please cite just one example in our universe of predictable and consistent complex pattern which was the result of randomness and not intelligent input?

Reality refutes the arguments you've made.

To the contrary, reality refutes the arguments you are attempting to make.

It is a direct repudiation of your argument, with just as much backing as your initial argument.

LOL... "No, it's not!" is not a valid argument for anything that I am aware of. It is a childish and imbecilic retort from someone who can't think of anything better to say. You see, in a debate, you must explain WHY it's not, as we don't operate on your empirical wisdom in this universe. Perhaps that shit works on your blow-up doll, but it doesn't work in intellectual debates.

It is valid. I disagree with you. I have all credibility. You are cretinesque in nature.

Again, this is nothing more than juvenile pablum. You have presented absolutely nothing to contradict a thing I have said, other than your profound opinions and smart ass remarks. Any time you get ready to have an adult conversation, I am waiting. I won't keep responding to such silliness.

Some do.

Nope... never in all our history of observing other animals have they exhibited signs of inherent human understanding of consequence. Some animals have been successfully trained to understand consequence, but it is not a natural instinct as it is in humans because they are not capable of cognitive thought and rationalization, as we are.

Except when they show signs of planning or cooperative mutually beneficial behavior, much like our own.

Other animals do not premeditate or "plan" things. They do cooperate sometimes, but they have no moral conviction to do so, it is purely a matter of survival instinct.

No it doesn't. You just wish it did.

Okay, this is the final time I will put your stupidity in quotes and respond, you obviously get your rocks off seeing me do that, and you aren't contributing any substance to the debate. I am bored with your childish bullshit and silliness. If you say something worth addressing, I will reply, otherwise, we're done and you are thoroughly fisted again.

 

[Kamala Trump]

If you can prove this, please do.

The burden is on you to prove patterns require a creative intelligence. they don't.

If not, you have a theory, and one that defies rationality at that. One might even call it a "crackpot" theory. Anywhere we observe predictable consistent pattern, we also observe intelligence in design of that pattern.

Nope. Sometimes, it's a just some regularity that occurs for a myriad of reasons.

To my knowledge, we have never observed predictable and consistent complex patterns without the presence of intelligent input.

To my knowlege we haven't observed a natural pattern that proves intelligent design. It's simply not a requirement.

Not invalid at all. We do indeed exist, therefore something is responsible for our existence.

Our existence doesn;t necessitate a creator. we could have spontaneously experienced is-ness without the assistance of a creator.

It's called "logic" dumbass. Please tell me what your theory is for how we came into existence, along with the millions of other known life forms on Earth?

I don't have to have one to tell you about the stupidity of your argument for Intelligent Design.

Example please?



Example please?

Life.

Chickens.

Please cite just one example in our universe of predictable and consistent complex pattern which was the result of randomness and not intelligent input?

Please cite one where your side is proven.

To the contrary, reality refutes the arguments you are attempting to make.

Alas, you are again wrong, and cowardly.

LOL... "No, it's not!" is not a valid argument for anything that I am aware of. It is a childish and imbecilic retort from someone who can't think of anything better to say. You see, in a debate, you must explain WHY it's not, as we don't operate on your empirical wisdom in this universe. Perhaps that shit works on your blow-up doll, but it doesn't work in intellectual debates.

It's a fine retort for arguments with as little prove and substance as yours.

Again, this is nothing more than juvenile pablum. You have presented absolutely nothing to contradict a thing I have said, other than your profound opinions and smart ass remarks. Any time you get ready to have an adult conversation, I am waiting. I won't keep responding to such silliness.

You will keep responding.

Nope... never in all our history of observing other animals have they exhibited signs of inherent human understanding of consequence.

Yes. They have.

Some animals have been successfully trained to understand consequence, but it is not a natural instinct as it is in humans because they are not capable of cognitive thought and rationalization, as we are.

Some animals show signs of clear abstract reasoning, and planning.

Other animals do not premeditate or "plan" things. They do cooperate sometimes, but they have no moral conviction to do so, it is purely a matter of survival instinct.

That's not qualitatively different than human morality.

Okay, this is the final time I will put your stupidity in quotes and respond, you obviously get your rocks off seeing me do that, and you aren't contributing any substance to the debate. I am bored with your childish bullshit and silliness. If you say something worth addressing, I will reply, otherwise, we're done and you are thoroughly fisted again.

But yet, you are fisted, my unintelligent design-ster.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Evolution is not based on an experiment. Evolution is not a scientific fact, but a theory, a rational one in my view. This does not mean that every crackpot theory out there that is also not scientific fact is as sound an idea as evolution.

Actually evolution is a scientific fact of it wouldn't be a theory.

I wouldn't take anything Dixie says on evolution to seriously as;

A. He doesn't know what a scientific theory is and;
B. He doesn't know what science is either.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Thread summary:


Morality is a way of behaving which facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.

Dixie is a moron.

Two things.

 

[midcan5]

Typical elitist opinion. "Dumb people need god to scare them into doing what we, the elite, deem is best."

Why elitist and why dumb, lots of smart people believe in a God and it is one question you will never be able to answer definitely. There is always that chance no matter how infinitesimal.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Why elitist and why dumb, lots of smart people believe in a God and it is one question you will never be able to answer definitely. There is always that chance no matter how infinitesimal.

Elitists want to keep the god myth alive so they can keep convincing people to do self-injurious things, like learning to accept authority no matter how misguided, or killing your children because god said to, or giving perfectly fine livestock to some self serving priesthood so they can "pass it on to god".

There's basically no chance.

 

[midcan5]

Thread summary:


Morality is a way of behaving which facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.

Read Parfit he will challenge your simplest assumptions, Reasons and Persons, there is also a book available in pdf he has worked on for 10 years and it free for download.

and this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

 

[Kamala Trump]

Read Parfit he will challenge your simplest assumptions, Reasons and Persons, there is also a book available in pdf he has worked on for 10 years and it free for download.

and this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

You challenge my assumptions. Im not following your link. You tell me what's wrong. right here. Right now.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually evolution is a scientific fact of it wouldn't be a theory.

I wouldn't take anything Dixie says on evolution to seriously as;

A. He doesn't know what a scientific theory is and;
B. He doesn't know what science is either.

There is no such thing as a "Scientific Fact" it is an oxymoron. Science can't "prove" therefore, nothing is "fact" because it remains "unproven" and inconclusive. There is a "theory" and that is as close as you get to "fact" unless it is a "law", which is only assumed to be a fact.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is no such thing as a "Scientific Fact" it is an oxymoron. Science can't "prove" therefore, nothing is "fact" because it remains "unproven" and inconclusive. There is a "theory" and that is as close as you get to "fact" unless it is a "law", which is only assumed to be a fact.

If you are of the skeptical thought then nothing can be proven. But again, we are moving into "how can you prove our brain isn't in a jar and this is just a computer simulation" territory with that logic. We can tell that some things are likelier than others. With Evolution vs. intelligent design, the odds are somewhere at 1/3 x (10 * 1/3) ^ (-1000 * 1/3) to 1/3 x (10 * 1/3) ^ (1000 * 1/3) in favor of evolution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If you are of the skeptical thought then nothing can be proven. But again, we are moving into "how can you prove our brain isn't in a jar and this is just a computer simulation" territory with that logic. We can tell that some things are likelier than others. With Evolution vs. intelligent design, the odds are somewhere at 1/3 x 10 ^ -1000 to 1/3 x 10 ^ 1000 in favor of evolution.

Evolution can't vs. Intelligent Design, they deal with two entirely different things. ET deals with evolution of species, ID deals with origin of life. Why do you think they can vs. each other?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is no such thing as a "Scientific Fact" it is an oxymoron. Science can't "prove" therefore, nothing is "fact" because it remains "unproven" and inconclusive. There is a "theory" and that is as close as you get to "fact" unless it is a "law", which is only assumed to be a fact.

And you don't know what your talking about. Because all theories are tentative doesn't mean there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Where do you come up with this non-sense? Is this what people in Alabama are taught in public education as science? Then that is indeed a travesty.

When we say that science is tentative we mean that their are no ABSOLUTE facts and no ABSOLUTE proofs. You're interpreting that as science not having any facts or proofs at all which is scientifically illiterate.

And Theory is not "as close as you get to a fact". A theory is based on fact or it simply is not a theory.

Thanks for demonstrating my point that you know neither what science or a scientific theory is.