Morality Defined

Onceler said:
No, the thing is, an advanced neocortex layer is a physical characteristic in the same way that fish gills are.

See how ignorant you are on this topic?

It is with this extra physical layer that we have the reasoning capability to contemplate things like right & wrong, and other aspects of morality. Again, this is what makes your comparison to lions & other animals so silly, and stupid.

See how easy your amazing argument was to refute?
Click to expand...

Onceler, Dixie will keep on long after any logical basis for his argument has been completely and utterly destroyed. He's like the energizer bunny.
 
Please explain how the logical basis for my argument has been destroyed, I don't think that has been articulated here. In fact, there has really been no basis in logic or reason for any other argument here. Loudmouth's popping off about how they are right and I am ignorant, isn't logic or reason, it's merely hot air. Present your case, if you have one, or shut the fuck up and move on. No one is interested in watching you act like monkeys.
 
Dixie said:
Please explain how the logical basis for my argument has been destroyed, I don't think that has been articulated here. In fact, there has really been no basis in logic or reason for any other argument here. Loudmouth's popping off about how they are right and I am ignorant, isn't logic or reason, it's merely hot air. Present your case, if you have one, or shut the fuck up and move on. No one is interested in watching you act like monkeys.
Click to expand...

It's simple. You have simply FAILED to prove that morality can only come from spirituality or religion. Which, I guess. is your idiotic point.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's simple. You have simply FAILED to prove that morality can only come from spirituality or religion. Which, I guess. is your idiotic point.
Click to expand...

First of all, nothing can be proven, it is impossible to "prove" it. You have offered no scientific evidence to show how mankind developed morality without faith and trust... not a lick. My argument is based in logic, and well-reasoned, you simply don't like my argument because it doesn't comport with your views regarding religious belief. I'm sorry, but just because you don't like something, doesn't make the evidence invalid.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Not at all. Human morality is similar but not exactly the same as pack mentality. As humans we have the ability to expand the pack to include non genetically related individuals, and we do, quite often.
Click to expand...

So... Morality = Pack Mentality + We Like Puppies!

Human morality is nothing like pack mentality, in fact in most instances, it is the exact opposite of pack mentality. You haven't even properly defined morality, much less morality without spiritual foundation. After reading your posts, I am convinced you don't really understand what morality is.

Back to the origin of morality, you still have come up with no explanation for it which didn't require faith and trust. Any potential theory you might have had, demonstrably fails, because it originally required faith and trust to enable moral behavior to emerge between men. This has nothing to do with evolution or the development of a neocortex, it had to do with spirituality and belief in a greater power. This was the foundational support for faith and trust, which leads to morality.

Can a non-religious person claim morality? Sure! Hitler claimed morality! Without a spiritual foundation, man tends to form a moral code which is individually defined and based on faith and trust in nature. This leads to definitions like yours, which are remarkably similar to pack mentality.
 
"Without a spiritual foundation, man tends to form a moral code which is individually defined and based on faith and trust in nature"

That's simply not true. Morality plays a big part of the social contract we choose to partake in as human beings. We like to be treated a certain way & have certain freedoms, and the only way to come close to guaranteeing that most other people treat us that way and grant us those freedoms is to behave in kind.

You just throw stuff out there & shoot from the hip, based on nothing but the point you're trying to prove, and call it "proof" and "evidence," and claim it can't be refuted. You're a very poor debater.
 
Dixie said:
So... Morality = Pack Mentality + We Like Puppies!
Click to expand...
Nobody said that.
Human morality is nothing like pack mentality, in fact in most instances, it is the exact opposite of pack mentality.
Click to expand...
It's very similar. It is not the exact opposite.
You haven't even properly defined morality,
Click to expand...
Yes I have, it's a way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.
much less morality without spiritual foundation. After reading your posts, I am convinced you don't really understand what morality is.
Click to expand...
I have perfectly defined morality without a spiritual foundation. I am convinced you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper sack.
Back to the origin of morality, you still have come up with no explanation for it which didn't require faith and trust.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have. but trust is required, however that trust is acquired. Faith is not a necessity.
Any potential theory you might have had, demonstrably fails, because it originally required faith and trust to enable moral behavior to emerge between men.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't fail. That's just something you keep inanely asserting.
This has nothing to do with evolution or the development of a neocortex, it had to do with spirituality and belief in a greater power.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Because morality is a set of standards that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships and has nothing to do with religion or spirituality.
This was the foundational support for faith and trust, which leads to morality.
Click to expand...
No. Animals cooperate. Primates cooperate. You don't see them bowing down and incanting ridiculous idiocy just to cooperate with each other.
Can a non-religious person claim morality? Sure! Hitler claimed morality! Without a spiritual foundation, man tends to form a moral code which is individually defined and based on faith and trust in nature. This leads to definitions like yours, which are remarkably similar to pack mentality.
Click to expand...

Any person can claim anything. I do not believe hitler was moral, as his philosophy was not Mutually beneficial, especially if you were not "aryan".

What I'm saying is actually very simple, yet you refuse to acknowledge it because your worldview depends on irrational lies and you seek to use Religion to shut down individual cost/benefit analysis. You're essentially a genocidal theocrat.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
"Without a spiritual foundation, man tends to form a moral code which is individually defined and based on faith and trust in nature"

That's simply not true. Morality plays a big part of the social contract we choose to partake in as human beings. We like to be treated a certain way & have certain freedoms, and the only way to come close to guaranteeing that most other people treat us that way and grant us those freedoms is to behave in kind.

You just throw stuff out there & shoot from the hip, based on nothing but the point you're trying to prove, and call it "proof" and "evidence," and claim it can't be refuted. You're a very poor debater.
Click to expand...

Where your concept fails is, animals have no natural desire or inclination to treat other animals the same way they expect to be treated. The very idea of this defies nature and natural selection, because as an immoral animal, I don't really give a shit if you have freedom or rights, and I don't worry about how you will treat me because I am stronger and will kill you. So we have this mythical "social contract we chose to participate in" but why? What fundamental scientific basis in natural selection or evolution, would animals have to behave in this way? In order for any 'social contract' to be possible, men had to first trust one another and have faith in that trust. How was this made possible? Through observations of other human animals spiritual beliefs, rituals, customs and practices surrounding those beliefs, that is my theory.

We've explored the aspect of mutual benefit, pack mentality. This is not Morality, although it is a tangible byproduct of morality. Like-minded people tend to form groups, organize their particular moralities, and this is also the foundation for most religions. That doesn't negate the logical conclusions of how Morality originated. Organized Religion certainly doesn't predate morality, and I have no argument against the criticism of religious morality through the ages, but the foundation of Morality is found in trust and faith from origin, because it defies scientific logic and principles of nature otherwise.
 
No it doesn't. Because morality is a set of standards that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships and has nothing to do with religion or spirituality.
Click to expand...

That is a nice definition of Pack Mentality, and a variety of creatures exhibit this behavior. However, it is not Morality. That would be a set of standards upheld because they are beneficial to all men. But the argument is not about what Morality is, rather how it came to be. Even in your erroneously defined version, it would defy nature and evolution to have originated without faith and trust.

Now... what you HAVE proven, is Atheists have a very low standard of morals, which can be likened to a pack of wolves or the Bloods and Crypts. Because your belief system contains no spiritual foundation, your sense of morality revolves around mutuality of benefit rather than betterment of mankind. This explains how you can be opposed to almost any morality issue of our time, yet claim you are a moral person. Your definition and understanding of Morality explains it all.
 
Dixie said:
That is a nice definition of Pack Mentality, and a variety of creatures exhibit this behavior. However, it is not Morality. That would be a set of standards upheld because they are beneficial to all men.
Click to expand...
What about MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL do you not understand?
But the argument is not about what Morality is, rather how it came to be.
Click to expand...
Nope. This thread is about what it is.
Even in your erroneously defined version, it would defy nature and evolution to have originated without faith and trust.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. People can learn through experience to trust each other.
Now... what you HAVE proven, is Atheists have a very low standard of morals, which can be likened to a pack of wolves or the Bloods and Crypts. Because your belief system contains no spiritual foundation, your sense of morality revolves around mutuality of benefit rather than betterment of mankind. This explains how you can be opposed to almost any morality issue of our time, yet claim you are a moral person. Your definition and understanding of Morality explains it all.
Click to expand...

These standards are higher than religious standards. Judaism is racist. Islam kills infidels. And christianity has been hijacked by fascists.

You think poorly.
 
I suggest you read my post in its entirety before you start responding. In fact, you may need to read it twice. Then, quote my entire post and respond all at once. thank you.
 
Dixie said:
I suggest you read my post in its entirety before you start responding. In fact, you may need to read it twice. Then, quote my entire post and respond all at once. thank you.
Click to expand...


I suggest you suck a fat monkey cock and spread the jizz on your anus.

I responded just swell.
 
Dixie said:
That is a nice definition of Pack Mentality, and a variety of creatures exhibit this behavior. However, it is not Morality. That would be a set of standards upheld because they are beneficial to all men. But the argument is not about what Morality is, rather how it came to be. Even in your erroneously defined version, it would defy nature and evolution to have originated without faith and trust.

Now... what you HAVE proven, is Atheists have a very low standard of morals, which can be likened to a pack of wolves or the Bloods and Crypts. Because your belief system contains no spiritual foundation, your sense of morality revolves around mutuality of benefit rather than betterment of mankind. This explains how you can be opposed to almost any morality issue of our time, yet claim you are a moral person. Your definition and understanding of Morality explains it all.
Click to expand...

I oppose artificial morality that does no one any good like your phobia about sex.
 
Ok, Dick-she, how does your spiritual definition of morality "benefit mankind". And what's wrong with mutual benefit?

See, my model disallows the elitism you love so much. You seek to use religion as a tool of oppression.
 
"Where your concept fails is, animals have no natural desire or inclination to treat other animals the same way they expect to be treated"

Go back a few posts, and see: "advanced neocortex layer."

Enough with the animal comparisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top