A natural explanation for morality

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How utterly fascinating is it, that this miraculous functioning of the brain, genes, chemicals, etc., is a result of sheer happenstance?

So what? Are unlikely things not supposed to happen, or something?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Didn't say you tried to interpret it. I said one of us must have the wrong interpretation, and I was correct.

Or, really, one or more of you may have the wrong interpretation.

I didn't say we weren't social animals, just that we are not genetically predisposed to be productive members of groups... we're NOT.

Societal carrots and sticks have the effect of altering ones ability to reproduce, and thus create an evolutionary pressure separate from kin selection. Obviously, if we had no predisposition towards the group at all, a productive society would be impossible.

Again... dispelling the myth that we are predisposed to be productive members of a group. If this was our predisposition, our group would become part of their group, and we'd all drink Coca-Cola and sing together on a hillside. We're NOT predisposed to do this, genetically or otherwise.

Well, we have multiple evolutionary pressures, divided loyalties. That doesn't mean that these loyalties don't exist, or that the only one that exists is the strongest (kin selection).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

im happy for ya bro

Would it be appropriate to pull my cock out for the atheist circlejerk as well?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Narlothotep would wholly approve.

Nyarlathotep.

BTW, in Egyptian, "hotep" mean "is pleased". That's why so many Egyptian pharoes have names of the form some god-hotep.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, you are entitled to think what you want. I really don't give two shits if you EVER tap into your spirituality, it is YOU who is missing the benefit of that, not me.

Altering somones name in the quote box: not humor.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wow, then there is some comfort in not being one of your favorite people!

They all had a horrifically neoconservative bent to them. Hitchens was relatively heavy with it, Dawkins less so. But Hitchens was probably the most obnoxious of the lot (they're all fairly obnoxious), so he naturally gets the most brownie points from the internet.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

hitchens was the most perfect awesome human that ever lived. His voice is like magic, his words pierce like something very sharp through something not usually meant to be pierced. His intelligence was beyond everything, he was a genius and could outdebate the shit out of anyone. Some called him dangerous because he could take any viewpoint and defend it, he was that good. He was the best most awesome coolest superdude of all time. RIP hitchens

 

[Rationalist]

hitchens was the most perfect awesome human that ever lived. His voice is like magic, his words pierce like something very sharp through something not usually meant to be pierced. His intelligence was beyond everything, he was a genius and could outdebate the shit out of anyone. Some called him dangerous because he could take any viewpoint and defend it, he was that good. He was the best most awesome coolest superdude of all time. RIP hitchens

And he was consistent. He didn't just kick christianity's ass while turning a blind eye (or sucking up) to Islam. In fact, he recognized that radical Islam represented the greatest threat to rational thought and civilization. Too bad most libs prefer to suck Muhammad's dick whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

New atheists essentially confine their criticisms of Christianity to some small southern US denominations of the religion, while failing to attack most of the major tenets of the religion itself, while, on the other hand, Muhammad is the spawn of Satan, and all Muslims are terrorists who should be collectively impaled for the good of the species.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am personally an old atheist.

 

[Rationalist]

New atheists essentially confine their criticisms of Christianity to some small southern US denominations of the religion, while failing to attack most of the major tenets of the religion itself, while, on the other hand, Muhammad is the spawn of Satan, and all Muslims are terrorists who should be collectively impaled for the good of the species.

I tend to fall into that category (minus the hyperbole). Fundamentalist Christianity, while stupid, does not threaten the foundations of western civilization to the degree that fundamentalist Islam does. The only exception to that would be fundamentalist Christians' belief that creationism (AKA "intelligent design") should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. This is dangerous. But as a democratic society, I do believe reason will win in the end. At least most fundamentalist Christians aren't blowing themselves up in crowds or forcing the Ten Commandments onto society.

The old Islamic empire was once the cradle of science and philosophy. It has since reduced itself to a primitive, caveman religion. I think all religions will follow that same path, until they ultimately implode. Does anyone believe for a second that religion will be widely accepted 100 or 200 years from now?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If objective morality means that morality has an objective, does subjective morality mean that morality has a subjective? Is subjective morality a term without meaning, a fact which our resident scholar, Dixie, has just recently unearthed, to the chagrin of the many millions who've used the term throughout history with the opposite impression?

No, I've unearthed that some pinheads don't know how to express their thoughts. Objective morality, as Damo points out, does have an objective. Subjective morality would me morality that is subjective. If you believe all morality is subjective, you should say that, and not that you "don't believe in objective morality."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So what? Are unlikely things not supposed to happen, or something?

Unlikely things happen all the time, but this goes to a whole new level of unlikeliness.

First of all, it's about a hundred thousand unlikely things happening at precise times or intervals and over the course of time, in perfect order, some happening quickly, some happening gradually, but all happening... unlikely things... one after another... chemicals reacting, elements coalescing, coming together in perfect harmony to first create a planet precisely capable of sustaining something yet unknown, called life. Then the process of the life advancing and evolving and more life abounding to support the already extent life...not knowing it had to be... none of it knowing it needed to exist... just by happenstance... unlikely as it is, all these many things came together.

It stats with a bang which has yet to be explained.. but what existed before that moment? What caused that moment? And all the matter that comprises the things which come together in miraculous harmony to form life, what was it before?

 

[Onceler]

Unlikely things happen all the time, but this goes to a whole new level of unlikeliness.

First of all, it's about a hundred thousand unlikely things happening at precise times or intervals and over the course of time, in perfect order, some happening quickly, some happening gradually, but all happening... unlikely things... one after another... chemicals reacting, elements coalescing, coming together in perfect harmony to first create a planet precisely capable of sustaining something yet unknown, called life. Then the process of the life advancing and evolving and more life abounding to support the already extent life...not knowing it had to be... none of it knowing it needed to exist... just by happenstance... unlikely as it is, all these many things came together.

It stats with a bang which has yet to be explained.. but what existed before that moment? What caused that moment? And all the matter that comprises the things which come together in miraculous harmony to form life, what was it before?

It's unlikely anyone would ever know what it was before.

But, all of the improbable things you refer to aren't nearly as improbable as an all-powerful, omniscient being just existing to make it all happen.
'

 

[Rationalist]

No, I've unearthed that some pinheads don't know how to express their thoughts. Objective morality, as Damo points out, does have an objective. Subjective morality would me morality that is subjective. If you believe all morality is subjective, you should say that, and not that you "don't believe in objective morality."

Uh, try googling "objective morality" and see if that's what you get, Dixie. Because I'm getting something completely different.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's unlikely anyone would ever know what it was before.

But, all of the improbable things you refer to aren't nearly as improbable as an all-powerful, omniscient being just existing to make it all happen.
'

That's where I disagree. I think it's the opposite. If a fella walks into a casino in Vegas and starts playing the slots, and he hits the jackpot on the first try, it's improbable that some other force is at play, it's more probable that he just got lucky on his first pull. If he hits two in a row, it is still improbable that something else is at play, it's unusual or this to happen, but probably still explainable... he hits 3 in a row... 4...5...6...7...8 in a row... this goes on all weekend, he hits hundreds of jackpots in a row, without fail. Do you STILL conclude that it's "improbable" something else is at play, simply because you can't explain what that is?

That's what you are saying here. Think about the hundreds or thousands of events and things which had to happen, just between the big bang and the gathering of elements which comprised Earth and her atmosphere.... the Moon, comes careening into the planet, knocking it into a wobbly rotation, which creates 'seasons' on Earth, enabling life to 'cycle' and thus... function. But the Moon is not done, it comes to rest a quarter-million miles from Earth, where it's gravitational effects and orbit, cause the Earth to have oceanic tides, which results in oceans teaming with life that could otherwise not have existed. Now, we are into thousands of things that had to happen in a very specific way at a certain time, before life has ever even made an appearance. Did it all "know" it needed to come together like this? Well... 'something' apparently did, right?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Uh, try googling "objective morality" and see if that's what you get, Dixie. Because I'm getting something completely different.

Look idiot, I don't have time to play silly third grader word games. "Objective" means there is an "object" or "point" of it. Damo explained it best:

Damo: Objective Morality is a description of why the moral code was made...

The Objective: To create a self-perpetuating or growing society to allow for the continuing species.

To that end a set of moral "values" became popular. Not eating each other, for instance, or feeding the young and helping them learn, even not interbreeding in most places...

Dumbass Grind says he doesn't believe in "objective morality" then proceeded to give a list of objectives for morality. What he should have said is that he believes all morality is subjective, not that he doesn't believe in 'objective' morality. He could have also more appropriately said, he doesn't believe in "moral objectivism."

But see... here's the thing with Grind... he flies by his own set of rules. There are Grind Rules, and then there are the rules the rest of us are expected to follow. No need in questioning Grind Rules, because they are infallible, since Grind created them. For instance, did you know, if you are ever confused about who you are talking to here, what with "Trinity" continually switching out screen names... all you have to do is look at the 'location' in the upper right corner, and THAT tells a new person who visits here, who everyone really is. Grind told me this himself, therefore, it must be so!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Most people are dumb to their enemies. I also suffer from not reading my own posts. (the 'R' and the 'T' are side by side on my keyboard and too close for fingers like elephant feet. .... now, shall I close that bracket? .... OK, I will.).
Anyway your post got a 'Thank you' even if it was only from the king of Dumb.

lol... I know, simple mistakes... they are just far more funny when in a post mocking someone else for spelling.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

hitchens was the most perfect awesome human that ever lived. His voice is like magic, his words pierce like something very sharp through something not usually meant to be pierced. His intelligence was beyond everything, he was a genius and could outdebate the shit out of anyone. Some called him dangerous because he could take any viewpoint and defend it, he was that good. He was the best most awesome coolest superdude of all time. RIP hitchens

he was a little punk ass bitch... lets see him defend that... whats that? He's dead? figures he would take the cowards way out of debating me...

 

[Rationalist]

Look idiot, I don't have time to play silly third grader word games. "Objective" means there is an "object" or "point" of it. Damo explained it best:

Damo: Objective Morality is a description of why the moral code was made...

The Objective: To create a self-perpetuating or growing society to allow for the continuing species.

To that end a set of moral "values" became popular. Not eating each other, for instance, or feeding the young and helping them learn, even not interbreeding in most places...

Dumbass Grind says he doesn't believe in "objective morality" then proceeded to give a list of objectives for morality. What he should have said is that he believes all morality is subjective, not that he doesn't believe in 'objective' morality. He could have also more appropriately said, he doesn't believe in "moral objectivism."

But see... here's the thing with Grind... he flies by his own set of rules. There are Grind Rules, and then there are the rules the rest of us are expected to follow. No need in questioning Grind Rules, because they are infallible, since Grind created them. For instance, did you know, if you are ever confused about who you are talking to here, what with "Trinity" continually switching out screen names... all you have to do is look at the 'location' in the upper right corner, and THAT tells a new person who visits here, who everyone really is. Grind told me this himself, therefore, it must be so!

I don't give two shits what Damo said or didn't say, fucktard. Objective morality is morality that is not relative to one's personal beliefs/experiences, but based on universal principles. Many atheists reject objective morality. Some, however, are able to present a case for it that operates within the framework of evolution by natural selection. I tend to fall into the latter category, as I view rejection of objective morality as a rejection of causality.

Some aspects of morality are subjective, but by and large, there are certain behaviors that are unacceptable and harmful to the functioning of a civilized society.

Rather than pretend as though you know everything right off the bat, I suggest you do some research first. The internet can make almost anyone look smart...even you, if you take the time to Google it instead of talking out of your ass.




http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/