Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

[Truck Fump / h1b]

HUman on human

@Truck Fump / h1b @Into the Night

It's always entertaining two watch the conservative and liberal sides of morality debate. One side (conservative) believes that morality is comes from a voice in a whirlwind and is embedded in the world by the creator of the universe. The other side (liberal) takes the approach that morality is all relative, so while we may believe that forcing women to live in cloth bags and forced clitoridectomies are immoral, that's really just a cultural thing and ultimately just a word game based on what we believe is good and bad.

Two sides of the same failure coin.

But I'm making a case that's different than both of those.

I'm saying morality is rational and derivable through logic and common sense.

 

[ZenMode]

HUman on human


But I'm making a case that's different than both of those.

I'm saying morality is rational and derivable through logic and common sense.

Ok. My quick scan of posts gave me the wrong impression.

To a point, I think you're right, but people like Into the Night will stick to their moral relativism to the grave.

 

[Cypress]

It's always entertaining two watch the conservative and liberal sides of morality debate. One side (conservative) believes that morality is comes from a voice in a whirlwind and is embedded in the world by the creator of the universe. The other side (liberal) takes the approach that morality is all relative, so while we may believe that forcing women to live in cloth bags and forced clitoridectomies are immoral, that's really just a cultural thing and ultimately just a word game based on what we believe is good and bad.

I'm a liberal, and I believe in objective morality and absolute right and wrong. I have routinely challenged moral subjectivists to defend their position. I do not think anyone can live out moral relativism to it's logical conclusion.

We seem to be uniquely endowed with access to a moral conscience, not seen in other animals. There in nothing rational or logical about a Marine intentionally throwing himself on a grenade or a German industrialist risking his life to save thousands of Jewish strangers. There's nothing in a DNA molecule that requires that kind of moral action. Those moral actions defy rationality, self-preservation, and the laws of Darwinian evolution.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

HUman on human


But I'm making a case that's different than both of those.

I'm saying morality is rational and derivable through logic and common sense.

So it's moral when common sense tells you that the best way to ensure a good crop this year is to sacrifice a virgin?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

So it's moral when common sense tells you that the best way to ensure a good crop this year is to sacrifice a virgin?

or murder terrorist babies?

 

[Into the Night]

no they hate being called immoral because they are.

the truth Hurts, doesn't fascist suck up boy?

Random words. No apparent coherency. Mantra 1a...?

 

[Into the Night]

but they treat everyone else like victims.

morality goes to everyone.

Your definition does not include 'everyone' or even a number at all.

you don't have to please everyone, but you can NOT victimize them.

It is not possible to please everyone.

that's what it is to be moral.

So you are trying to redefine 'moral' from your OWN DEFINITION now? Then you agree with me. Your definition of 'moral' is quite inadequate.

 

[Into the Night]

@Truck Fump / h1b @Into the Night

It's always entertaining two watch the conservative and liberal sides of morality debate. One side (conservative) believes that morality is comes from a voice in a whirlwind and is embedded in the world by the creator of the universe. The other side (liberal) takes the approach that morality is all relative, so while we may believe that forcing women to live in cloth bags and forced clitoridectomies are immoral, that's really just a cultural thing and ultimately just a word game based on what we believe is good and bad.

Two sides of the same failure coin.

I am not trying to define 'moral', moron. I am using his own definition. How do you know the Universe was created? If any god created the Universe, where was that god when he created it??

 

[Into the Night]

or murder terrorist babies?

You still haven't define 'moral', other than in your sig, and you've already admitted that definition is wholly inadequate.

 

[Into the Night]

HUman on human


But I'm making a case that's different than both of those.

I'm saying morality is rational and derivable through logic and common sense.

'Moral' is logic??? That's like saying 'moral' is mathematics! You have attempted several definitions of 'moral' and even constructed a paradox (which I didn't point out until now). A paradox is not rational.

 

[Into the Night]

or murder terrorist babies?

WTF is a 'terrorist baby'????

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

WTF is a 'terrorist baby'????

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You still haven't define 'moral', other than in your sig, and you've already admitted that definition is wholly inadequate.

it's a range of behaviors and attitudes which facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

we can talk about the specifics if you like.

telling the truth is there.

refraining from violence is there.

refraining from fraud is there.

not besmirching others with lies is there.

 

[Into the Night]

YOU used the term. Don't you know???

 

[Into the Night]

it's a range of behaviors and attitudes which facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

So gang leaders have morals.

we can talk about the specifics if you like.

You simply stated your wholly inadequate definition once again.

telling the truth is there.

No, it isn't.

refraining from violence is there.

No, it isn't.

refraining from fraud is there.

No, it isn't.

not besmirching others with lies is there.

No, it isn't.

 

[EdwinA]

HUman on human


But I'm making a case that's different than both of those.

I'm saying morality is rational and derivable through logic and common sense.

F.A. Hayek makes a similar case in his book, The Fatal Conceit re the failures of 'rational constructionist' fantasies to solve anything.

 

[EdwinA]

So you are trying to redefine 'moral' from your OWN DEFINITION now? Then you agree with me. Your definition of 'moral' is quite inadequate.

Most of those who claimed to have refuted Thomas of Aquina's Five Ways have to re-define terms he used, i.e. just rewriting his words and meanings and refuting their own strawmen. Ideologues of all stripes have to do so as well.

All formal logic is circular reasoning, it's a function of definitions. That's useful in narrow areas, like math and empirical methodologies, but it fails badly in most others, like social and political controls and acceptable behaviors, none of which is 'logical' in any formal sense.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

F.A. Hayek makes a similar case in his book, The Fatal Conceit re the failures of 'rational constructionist' fantasies to solve anything.

F.A. Hayek makes a similar case in his book, The Fatal Conceit re the failures of 'rational constructionist' fantasies to solve anything.

is that like morality being rational?

sounds different.

his case in that book is probably not my case.

my case works.

you fascists just hate morality.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Your definition does not include 'everyone' or even a number at all.

It is not possible to please everyone.

So you are trying to redefine 'moral' from your OWN DEFINITION now? Then you agree with me. Your definition of 'moral' is quite inadequate.

of course morality is to be applied to everyone.

that's implied.

you have failed again in having a cogent point.

you think morality has something to do with myths and lies.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Most of those who claimed to have refuted Thomas of Aquina's Five Ways have to re-define terms he used, i.e. just rewriting his words and meanings and refuting their own strawmen. Ideologues of all stripes have to do so as well.

All formal logic is circular reasoning, it's a function of definitions. That's useful in narrow areas, like math and empirical methodologies, but it fails badly in most others, like social and political controls and acceptable behaviors, none of which is 'logical' in any formal sense.

it works fine.

morality is simple.

you warhawk eugenics Nazis just hate morality because you depend on evil and need to assuage your own guilt.

So in your own mind you pervert reasoning to sleep at night.