God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

Cypress said:
There's nothing logical about loving your enemy, or running towards diseased and infectious strangers rather than running away from them.

Now you are pivoting to saying what I said all along: humans have evolved an utterly unique moral conscience that does always follow rational materialism and the laws of survival and nature that other animals instinctively understand.
Click to expand...
of course this logic to loving an enemy, it's called the peace dividend.

peace is the rational choice over war.

you're just a shill for the war machine and its perverted you on a spiritual level.

please stop allowing demons to manifest in your mind.

thanks.
 
Why would animals get benefits from "loving your enemies"?

I just stumbled on this article which says:

"This paper presents and criticizes. Alexander's evolutionary theory of morality (1987). Earlier research, on which Alexander's theory is based, is also reviewed. The propensity to create moral systems evolved because it allowed ancestral humans to limit conflict within cooperating groups and thus form larger groups, which were advantageous because of intense between-group competition. Alexander sees moral codes as contractual, and the primary criticism of his theory is that moral codes are not completely contractual but also coercive. Ways of evaluating Alexander's theory as well as modified versions of it are discussed."

The red part seems to line up very much with what the poster Cypress said about "morality" can have an advantage for the animal. And this seems to posit a means by which larger groups can be GROWN by cooperation (peace as opposed to war). Might be over-interpretting this, though. And it doesn't address the question of why would an animal help a fellow sick animal (even though we know they do, but that's probably because they don't necessarily know that some sickness can spread).

The article is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1991.tb00803.x

You can even get the pdf free I think.
 
Cypress said:
There's nothing logical about loving your enemy, or running towards diseased and infectious strangers rather than running away from them.

Now you are pivoting to saying what I said all along: humans have evolved an utterly unique moral conscience that does always follow rational materialism and the laws of survival and nature that other animals instinctively understand.
Click to expand...
I have never seen any case of someone loving their enemy.
 
Hume said:
I have never seen any case of someone loving their enemy.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther King and his civil rights movement refused to retaliate against those who were harming them.

Jesus hung on the cross and forgave those who crucified him.

Ghandi and his followers treated their oppressors with complete restraint and did not retaliate.

My mother told me if she were ever murdered to pray for her killer.

The Geneva convention on prisoners of war codified the concept that enemy prisoners are supposed to be treated respectfully and humanely.
 
Hume said:
What does that have to do with loving your enemy?
Click to expand...
It should be self evident.

In almost all cultures, the directive would be to retaliate against people who are doing you harm, not treat them with the utmost restraint. That is a kind of respect for the value of your enemy as a human being that is completely radical in the history of human relationships.
 
Daylight63 said:
Why would animals get benefits from "loving your enemies"?

I just stumbled on this article which says:

"This paper presents and criticizes. Alexander's evolutionary theory of morality (1987). Earlier research, on which Alexander's theory is based, is also reviewed. The propensity to create moral systems evolved because it allowed ancestral humans to limit conflict within cooperating groups and thus form larger groups, which were advantageous because of intense between-group competition. Alexander sees moral codes as contractual, and the primary criticism of his theory is that moral codes are not completely contractual but also coercive. Ways of evaluating Alexander's theory as well as modified versions of it are discussed."

The red part seems to line up very much with what the poster Cypress said about "morality" can have an advantage for the animal. And this seems to posit a means by which larger groups can be GROWN by cooperation (peace as opposed to war). Might be over-interpretting this, though. And it doesn't address the question of why would an animal help a fellow sick animal (even though we know they do, but that's probably because they don't necessarily know that some sickness can spread).

The article is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1991.tb00803.x

You can even get the pdf free I think.
Click to expand...
this is exactly what i've been saying.

it's EVOLVED to limit agression and enhance cooperation.

that's a win win.

deep state murder freaks only profit off murder and conflict, so they fight goodness and cooperation and they TRY to train people to reject morality on purpose to maintain their business model.

morality is only coercion when the bad murder freak people are in charge like the Catholics or the globalists or the masons , and then its not morality at all, but domination.

:truestory:
 
Cypress said:
What does that even mean? Give specifics.

I have been feeding birds and squirrels for years. The parents will bring food to the offspring. That is easily explained by evolutionary theory. I have never, ever seen birds bring food as a charitable donation to another species.

You can scour the internet for supposed exceptions and rare anomalies. But the fact is, some of the types of morality taught by human prophets have nothing to do with rationality in the context of the laws of nature and survival.
Click to expand...
The ravens feed Elijah!
 
Lao Tse said:
of course this logic to loving an enemy, it's called the peace dividend.

peace is the rational choice over war.

you're just a shill for the war machine and its perverted you on a spiritual level.

please stop allowing demons to manifest in your mind.

thanks.
Click to expand...
"All I am saying is give peace a chance"!
 
Margot said:
Christian ethics? WTH is that????
Click to expand...
Matthew 5 to 7, Sermon on the Mount
Luke 6, Sermon on the Plain.

If one actually genuinely accepts Jesus into their heart, it is supposed to have ethical consequences, and one will start to try to emulate the ethical example of Jesus.

If one fails to see any sort of ethical improvement, it means the conversion to faith in Christ was fake and not genuine.
 
Margot said:
The ravens feed Elijah!
Click to expand...
I have had cats bring me dead birds, but they see our relationship being based on reciprocity and mutual benefit.

Any cursory reading of the gospels clearly shows Jesus wasn't taking about giving anyone credit for an ethical life based on reciprocity and mutual benefit
 
Daylight63 said:
Apologies. Tried to be thorough in responding to your points. I'll try to keep it shorter for you in the future.

Highlights:
1. Lepers were cared for by the people of Judea (hence them being beggars). Also Jews would have been quite familiar with helping the stranger since that's in the Pentateuch in Leviticus meaning at least some of Jesus' ministry was not AS revolutionary certainly to the Jews.
Click to expand...
Hebrew purity laws in principle precluded contact with lepers. That is one way Jesus was considered by his contemporaries to not be keeping the ritual cleanliness laws of Torah.

Okay, so tending to strangers, rivals, the infectious diseased is part of the Judeo-Christian legacy, not a legacy of Darwinian biology and the natural laws of survival.

That is precisely what I have been saying
Daylight63 said:
2. Animals don't practice morality based on reciprocity. So reciprocity can't be the reason why a creature would act to help a fellow creature.

3. I think the instinct to act "morally" (ie helping one's fellow being etc.) arose FIRST in animals (of which humans are one) but then humans' larger brains decided to ask "why do we do that?" and so the moral teachers came along to frame what we already know to be closer to an instinct (which fits with your suggestion that this sort of cooperation is an evolutionary benefit)
Click to expand...
Reciprocity is a form of altruism that is almost universally accepted as a mechanism of Darwinian evolution, even among animals. Why? Because it is mutually advantageous and increases the probability of one's genetic code surviving.

Any cursory reading of the gospels clearly shows Jesus wasn't talking about giving anyone special credit for an ethical life based on reciprocity and mutual benefit. Jesus adroitly pointed out that even sinners, tax collectors, pagans loved and assisted their family and friends. A life lived in accordance with a objective moral truth extends beyond the bonds of family, friends, neighbors, and beyond the mutual advantage of reciprocity.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Matthew 5 to 7, Sermon on the Mount
Luke 6, Sermon on the Plain.

If one actually genuinely accepts Jesus into their heart, it is supposed to have ethical consequences, and one will start to try to emulate the ethical example of Jesus.

If one fails to see any sort of ethical improvement, it means the conversion to faith in Christ was fake and not genuine.
Click to expand...
where did you hear this horseshit?
Kenneth copeland?

this is the Masonic horseshit I'm talking about with you.

you're a fully satanic globalist fiat currency humanity murdering rectum licker.
 
Cypress said:
Hebrew purity laws in principle precluded contact with lepers. That is one way Jesus was considered by his contemporaries to not be keeping the ritual cleanliness laws of Torah.

Okay, so tending to strangers, rivals, the infectious diseased is part of the Judeo-Christian legacy, not a legacy of Darwinian biology and the natural laws of survival.

That is precisely what I have been saying

Reciprocity is a form of altruism that is almost universally accepted as a mechanism of Darwinian evolution, even among animals. Why? Because it is mutually advantageous and increases the probability of one's genetic code surviving.

Any cursory reading of the gospels clearly shows Jesus wasn't talking about giving anyone special credit for an ethical life based on reciprocity and mutual benefit. Jesus adroitly pointed out that even sinners, tax collectors, pagans loved and assisted their family and friends. A life lived in accordance with an objective moral truth extends beyond the bonds of family, friends, neighbors, and beyond the mutual advantage of reciprocity.
Click to expand...
Are you of the opinion that animals actually do these things because they are THINKING about reciprocity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top