Morality Defined

Dixie said:
You are stupid. You don't seem to understand, the "experiences" you keep mentioning, did not just magically take place on a whim one day! This also defies Darwin's theory and nature in general. Unless you believe that God enabled these first original experiences, which lead to man's understanding of morality and why it was important, you haven't provided an explanation for how it emerged.

You keep attributing Morality to things that came AFTER morality! Compassion, understanding, empathy, helpful behavior, cooperative relationships... ALL were the products of Morality! It preceded these things, which means they didn't happen first! Before Morality, there had to be Faith and Trust, because there is no other way to rationally explain how Morality got here, unless God just gave it to us! Now you can keep dancing around on a head of a pin, pretending you are Muhammad Ali, but you haven't shown us anything to support your baseless view of how Morality came to be without the prerequisite of faith and trust.

You want to keep on angrily throwing "your sun god" up, but it wasn't MY sun god, I don't believe in a sun god! I have already said, maybe it wasn't a sun god at all, maybe it was the rain god or the wind god, or maybe it was the general sense we are all born with, that something is greater than ourselves? I know you don't think you were born with this general sense, but you were, we all were. Your incessant lashing out against this belief is proof that you do indeed believe, you are just in denial. Your denial of this is so strong, you are unable to think objectively, and you continue to pose ridiculous arguments which defy nature and the theories of Darwin himself! I've shown you this, I've explained how it is impossible for Morality to have emerged without the presence of faith and trust, but you just want to insist you know better than me, and I am an idiot.

You've not explained it or made a case for how it came about, and the fact is, you can't! Everything you try to point to, leads us right back to my original point, it originally required some faith and trust in something. There is no rational, natural, or scientific way to explain it otherwise, unless you believe God just bestowed this understanding upon man. I suppose that is possible, but you are supposed to be an Atheist, and I don't think that is the argument you intended.

In your warped mind, you want to believe Morality has nothing to do with spiritual belief. You try to construct a secular definition of morality and it is the same definition we use for the behavior of wolves and street gangs. Then you attempt to wiggle out of that statement by adding to the definition, and suddenly, your definition is what we use to describe organized religion! Meanwhile, you continue to rationalize how morality came to be by pointing to the results of morality.

Man did not just stumble out of the primordial soup with this profound wisdom and understanding of morality. In order for it to have taken place the first time, man had to trust and have faith, otherwise, it defies nature. You want to use terms like "they realized" but realization requires rationalization, and how could they rationalize something that defied the laws of nature? Human morality is confined to ONE species on the planet, and it is not the product of nature. It clearly doesn't meet the standards set by Darwin for evolutionary acquisition. It is a human behavior, found only in humans, curiously enough, so is spirituality! Go fuckin figure? This is not a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I never said man stumbled out of primordial soup with morality. Versions of morality have been with us since before we were even human.
There is social cooperation in animals species, despite your hysterical denials of such. Human morality is just a further refinement of these, except for in the case of backward tribalistic religion, which seeks to destroy rationality so priests and assholes can organize society for their own benefit and screw everyone else.

Religious morality is expressly NOT moral in my view.

I thought you were done?
I guess you're a liar.
 
uscitizen said:
but you said religious morals were to benefit ALL. sheesh.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that. Perhaps you should try reading the whole thread. I don't belong to any religion, I am a spiritualist. I am merely making a factual statement about AHZ's refined definition of morality. The dogma, teachings, prophecies, and objectives of all religious morality is based in their particular understanding of what is beneficial to all mankind. Regardless of whether you and I agree with their viewpoint, it doesn't negate this fact. Hitler firmly believed in the "morality" of cleansing the world of Jews, this was what he believed would benefit all of mankind. I don't agree with Hitler's view of Morality, but that doesn't mean he didn't have this view. alQaeda's view of Morality is to cleanse the world of Infidels and Jews, they believe they are doing a moral thing and it will benefit all of mankind. I don't agree with alQaeda, I think they are wrong and I don't think it is "Moral" at all, but they believe it and organized a religion based on it, that is a fact.

What you are lamely attempting to do, is take my statement of fact and make me somehow responsible for it. I can't help that all organized religion is based and founded on the principles in AHZ's definition of morality, that is just a fact. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with any of those specific viewpoints or definitions of what is moral and immoral, or even that I have justified those beliefs and morals, it just means it is an indisputable fact.

It's almost like, if you said "oil is $150 a barrel!" and I responded with... "Oil is a natural resource, and doesn't 'cost' anything." My comment has absolutely nothing to do with your statement of fact! It's just an idiotic attempt to throw shit toward you because I am too woefully incompetent to debate you. See?
 
Dixie said:
No, I didn't say that. Perhaps you should try reading the whole thread. I don't belong to any religion, I am a spiritualist. I am merely making a factual statement about AHZ's refined definition of morality. The dogma, teachings, prophecies, and objectives of all religious morality is based in their particular understanding of what is beneficial to all mankind.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. Judaism is racist. Islam kills infidels. new age spiritualism rejects those who do not accept globalist dogma. Christianity has been hijacked by authoritarians.
Regardless of whether you and I agree with their viewpoint, it doesn't negate this fact.
Click to expand...
What you call FACT is demonstrably untrue.
Hitler firmly believed in the "morality" of cleansing the world of Jews, this was what he believed would benefit all of mankind.
Click to expand...
But it is obviously not beneficial to all individuals. Even hitler probably would agree that his viewpoint was not beneficial for jews.
I don't agree with Hitler's view of Morality, but that doesn't mean he didn't have this view. alQaeda's view of Morality is to cleanse the world of Infidels and Jews, they believe they are doing a moral thing and it will benefit all of mankind.
Click to expand...
But my definition is not what people BELIEVE To be mutually beneficial, but what IS mutually beneficial. We both seem to actually reject religious morality, so what the fuck have you been going on about, page after page.
I don't agree with alQaeda, I think they are wrong and I don't think it is "Moral" at all, but they believe it and organized a religion based on it, that is a fact.
Click to expand...
Which is why I reject religious based morality. It is not moral to kill infidels, as infidels are individuals, and being killed is not beneficial.
What you are lamely attempting to do, is take my statement of fact and make me somehow responsible for it.
Click to expand...
People BELIEVING they are moral is not the same as actually instituting truly mutually beneficial morality.
I can't help that all organized religion is based and founded on the principles in AHZ's definition of morality, that is just a fact.
Click to expand...
They aren't. Most have a clearly defined enemy, and thus do not fit my concept.
It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with any of those specific viewpoints or definitions of what is moral and immoral, or even that I have justified those beliefs and morals, it just means it is an indisputable fact.
Click to expand...
They just BELIEVE they are moral. It doesn't mean they are. They are brainwashed like you.
It's almost like, if you said "oil is $150 a barrel!" and I responded with... "Oil is a natural resource, and doesn't 'cost' anything." My comment has absolutely nothing to do with your statement of fact! It's just an idiotic attempt to throw shit toward you because I am too woefully incompetent to debate you. See?
Click to expand...

Nobody sees any value in your ranting idiocy. So no. I don't see.

I thought you were done?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I never said man stumbled out of primordial soup with morality. Versions of morality have been with us since before we were even human.
There is social cooperation in animals species, despite your hysterical denials of such. Human morality is just a further refinement of these, except for in the case of backward tribalistic religion, which seeks to destroy rationality so priests and assholes can organize society for their own benefit and screw everyone else.

Religious morality is expressly NOT moral in my view.

I thought you were done?
I guess you're a liar.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained how man acquired the attribute. As a scientist, this is important to establish before you make conclusions. You have mentioned several times "before we were human" but this has not been established by any scientific evidence I am aware of. To the best of our knowledge, we have always been human. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We know there were Neanderthals, even after the emergence of Homo-sapien, maybe they died out because they lacked the spirituality, and thus, the faith and trust to enable morality? Maybe they were Godless heathens like you, who couldn't rationalize morals based on the inner-convictions of spiritual people?

We've already scientifically determined, based on the clinical observations of other species, "social cooperation" is not morality in any sense of the word. It can certainly be one of the many byproducts of morality, but one need not be moral to socially cooperate with another. They also do not require moral compatibility to cooperate. History is rife with examples, I am sure you are aware.

Some religions are indeed founded and their "morality" set by what is most beneficial to themselves. On this, I will agree. However, most religious morality is simply an extension of your contentions about what morality is. A group of people with the set of principles which enable mutually beneficial cooperation for all mankind... (or whateverthefuck you said.)

The entire point I have had to make, is rooted in common sense, science, Darwin theory, and objective rational thinking. You can't accept it because it defeats your argument, and I understand that. I don't blame you for rambling on and on, dissecting my posts into 50,000 separate quotes and delivering a one-line insulate hate-filled quip of commentary for each one. If I were an Atheist without any foundation for my beliefs, I would certainly be doing the same thing!

In reading your unreasonable responses, you would think that I am arguing that Jesus came down and taught men how to be moral, so they started doing it and then they all loved Jesus, and that is how we obtained Morality. My argument is non-respective of religion and religious belief. Spirituality has been around much longer than Religion. Morality is provably rooted in Spiritual beliefs and the faith and trust involved with those beliefs, it is the only scientific explanation that exists. There is no other physical or physiological reason, rationale, or justification for this particular human behavior. To have originated, it required a human mind capable of rationalized thought, and the trust and faith in what that mind believed. Regardless of how you want to see it, that is Spirituality.

Does this mean that non-religious people can't behave morally? No. Does this mean Morality can't exist outside of Religious belief? No. Does it mean Religion is responsible for all Morality? No. It simply means, mankind acquired Morality through Spiritual belief and the faith and trust it provided. Nothing more!
 
Dixie said:
You haven't explained how man acquired the attribute.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have. Cooperation increases survivability.
As a scientist, this is important to establish before you make conclusions.
Click to expand...
As if you know anything about science, creationist moron.
You have mentioned several times "before we were human" but this has not been established by any scientific evidence I am aware of.
Click to expand...
All rational people believe men evolved from primates.
To the best of our knowledge, we have always been human.
Click to expand...
No. The fossil record shows intermediate species.


There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is, idiotic evolution denialist.
We know there were Neanderthals, even after the emergence of Homo-sapien, maybe they died out because they lacked the spirituality, and thus, the faith and trust to enable morality? Maybe they were Godless heathens like you, who couldn't rationalize morals based on the inner-convictions of spiritual people?
Click to expand...
Many believe neanderthals and homo sapiens interbred to essentially become one species. And if they did die out. It was most likely due to less intelligence, and perhaps a slightly less moral code. Because as we all know, morality is behavior which increase mutually cooperative and beneficial relationships. there is no need for religion or spirituality.
We've already scientifically determined, based on the clinical observations of other species, "social cooperation" is not morality in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
It's only you who have come to that idiotic conclusion. You're getting sloppy with the pronouns.
It can certainly be one of the many byproducts of morality, but one need not be moral to socially cooperate with another.
Click to expand...
That cooperations IS Morality.
They also do not require moral compatibility to cooperate. History is rife with examples, I am sure you are aware.
Click to expand...
Cooperation itself is morality.
Some religions are indeed founded and their "morality" set by what is most beneficial to themselves. On this, I will agree. However, most religious morality is simply an extension of your contentions about what morality is.
Click to expand...
No. Most religious morality is a denial of my contentions about what morality is.
A group of people with the set of principles which enable mutually beneficial cooperation for all mankind... (or whateverthefuck you said.)
Click to expand...
Obviously when you kill infidels it is not beneficial for all individuals. The other main religions have similar flaws.
The entire point I have had to make, is rooted in common sense, science, Darwin theory, and objective rational thinking.
Click to expand...
No. It's rooted in idiocy and DENIAL of common sense.
You can't accept it because it defeats your argument, and I understand that.
Click to expand...
I don't accept it because it's stupid and immoral.
I don't blame you for rambling on and on, dissecting my posts into 50,000 separate quotes and delivering a one-line insulate hate-filled quip of commentary for each one. If I were an Atheist without any foundation for my beliefs, I would certainly be doing the same thing!
Click to expand...
There's no hate. I simply refute your idiocy line by line.
In reading your unreasonable responses, you would think that I am arguing that Jesus came down and taught men how to be moral, so they started doing it and then they all loved Jesus, and that is how we obtained Morality.
Click to expand...
Basically your arguments ARE just that stupid.
My argument is non-respective of religion and religious belief. Spirituality has been around much longer than Religion. Morality is provably rooted in Spiritual beliefs and the faith and trust involved with those beliefs, it is the only scientific explanation that exists.
Click to expand...
^^
Irrelevant distinctions and idiotic wordplay.
There is no other physical or physiological reason, rationale, or justification for this particular human behavior.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships allow those who participate in such arrangements to flourish above and beyond others who don't.
To have originated, it required a human mind capable of rationalized thought, and the trust and faith in what that mind believed. Regardless of how you want to see it, that is Spirituality.
Click to expand...
Even some animal minds are able to cooperate. And they don't need spirituality to do it. Asserting so is idiotic in the extreme.
Does this mean that non-religious people can't behave morally? No. Does this mean Morality can't exist outside of Religious belief? No. Does it mean Religion is responsible for all Morality? No. It simply means, mankind acquired Morality through Spiritual belief and the faith and trust it provided. Nothing more!
Click to expand...

There is not a meaningful distinction between spritual belief and religious belief.

So, again, you've been roundly defeated, queef-taster.
 
Last edited:
He truly is a remarkable human being. In order to conquer his fear, he chooses to absorb that fear and become that fear himself.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What's all that blabbering on about fear? What does that have to do with the fact that morality is a way of behaving that facilitates collaborative and mutually beneficial relationships?
Click to expand...

Because that is not a definition of morality, if it were, wolfpacks and street gangs would be moral, and they clearly are not. If you alter your definition to include mutual benefit to all peoples, you have a definition of the basis for all organized religion. So, by your own definitions, morality is either the same behavior practiced by wolves and street gangs, or it's the behavior practiced by members of organized religious groups.

This lame definition of what you think morality is, doesn't explain how morality came to be. There is no scientific basis or natural reasoning for an evolving animal to assume the characteristic without initial faith and trust. You can't prove it, you can't give me an example of it, because it is inherently impossible to do so. This is why you've relegated yourself to sounding like a WWE character and insisting you've won something you haven't.

In order for man to have entered into a 'social contract' with other humans, it had to be preceded with faith and trust, otherwise, there is no rationale for such a contradiction to nature. In order for man to have even rationalized morality and moral behavior, there first had to be trust and faith in something else. The only plausible explanation otherwise, is that God magically bestowed this ability to rationalize morality on man when he created him. Given you claim to be Atheist, I don't think that is what you are trying to argue, but it is plausible. In order for anything remotely close to your argument to prevail, requires a faith and trust establishment first. There is no logical, scientific, Darwinist, natural or evolutionary reason for this behavior otherwise.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, if you want to continue to believe in a Myth, you can do so, no one will stop you, but please stop trying to shove your myths down my throat. You can define morality any way you like, as I pointed out, Hitler thought he was being moral by ridding the world of Jews. The thing you can't do, is change science and nature. On this, you are not the empirical authority, no matter how much hot air you spew. You can't prevail in a debate where you have offered no evidence to support your idea, and it doesn't matter how much you want to claim otherwise, that is a fact of the matter. I've shown you where you are wrong, and how you are wrong, I have offered explanations to support my view, I have given examples of what might have occurred, and how morality may have originated, as well as explaining why humans have this attribute while other animals, including primates, do not.

All you can do is continue to repeat the same illogical irrational and idiotic viewpoint of what morality is, without any logical or rational explanation for how it would have originated. In short, you are a blowhard and a retard. You've not "fisted" anyone here, you've not bent anyone over against their will, you've not trounced anyone or won the WWE Championship Grudge Match. You've spewed idiocy for 6 pages and failed to make your point. If calling people names and talking like a bad ass were the criteria for winning arguments, you would have won this one long ago, you are persistent, I will give you that, but those are not the criteria for winning arguments, they are the criteria for proving you are a dumb ass. Congrats, you win that argument!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top