If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[IBDaMann]

Mutual defense of one's family and the herd is not morality. It's self-interest and reciprocity.

What you just wrote is stupid. Next you'll say that giving to charity is not morality, it's financial tax strategy. Then you'll say that saving someone's life is "social networking."

All of it falls under the umbrella of morality.

You don't see chimpanzees offering to defend rival packs of chimps.

You and I don't monitor any chimpanzee societies.

If anything, they will try to steal the territory and resources of other groups of chimpanzees.

They behave much as humans do.

They only defend family and fellow troop members.

They behave much as humans do.

That is entirely about protecting and maintaining one's own genetic information.

Incorrect. You need to brush up on Darwin's theory of evolution. Start with symbiotic species.

When Oskar Schindler and Giorgio Perlsca risked their lives to save thousands of complete strangers they were not sitting around thinking about how to make society more stable and more mutually beneficial.

They might have been. You don't know.

 

[Cypress]

Every meal has an innate value to me which cannot be removed.


Nope. It is a question of value, an economics concept, and is the driver in the price discovery of the supply-demand curve.


This is one hekkuva premise from which to draw any conclusions.


Given the laws of physics, any evolution that transpired was as inevitable as an object falling due to gravity, which is to say that the word "accidentally" is not appropriate.


Incorrect. Despite being a collection of molecules, I am nonetheless imbued with emergent life that makes me greater than the sum of my component parts, and I nonetheless value every meal beyond the mere sum of its component molecules.

As a militant atheist, you're lying to yourself if you think physical processes of the quarks and electrons that constitute your body give you any ontologically real innate value as an individual human. Your free to delude yourself that your atomic matter has real innate value, but that is just an illusion you allow yourself to believe

Your grasping at straws when you tried to equate morality with the herd behavior of zebras.

Mutual defense and social cooperation within the herd, within the pack, within the flock are strictly Darwinian instinctual behavior for the protection of genetic information within the individuals of that herd.

That's not morality. That's self interest. Even Charles Darwin wouldn't have said something as foolish like zebras are moral beings with moral agency.

 

[IBDaMann]

bottom line.

both cypress and I believe in a transcendent morality.

he just wants is to be Jew worship.

I want it to be the golden rule.

Jesus is King.

Team Tucker.

Team Candace.

You're not far off the mark. If you would only learn that fascism isn't effectively everything, you'd be rather spot on target. I'll take you on your word about Jesus being king and all.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You're not far off the mark. If you would only learn that fascism isn't effectively everything, you'd be rather spot on target. I'll take you on your word about Jesus being king and all.

fascism isn't everything. it's the union of state and corporate power.

but lets not blend threads.

 

[gmark77]

As a militant atheist, you're lying to yourself if you think physical processes of the quarks and electrons that constitute your body give you any ontologically real innate value as an individual human.

One stop short of speaking in tongues. What a load of blather. You just cobble that together from your imagination? Or did you use Google AI?

Your free to delude yourself that your atomic matter has real innate value,

It's all you know about. Ergo it is the only thing that has innate value.

Last I checked humans are matter.

but that is just an illusion you allow yourself to believe

Preach it brother Cy!

Your grasping at straws when you tried to equate morality with the herd behavior of zebras.

And you sound like a Creationist fighting against the idea of humans as animals.

That's not morality.

HEY EVERYBODY! CYPRESS IS TELLING YOU IT IS NOT MORALITY! IF YOU DISAGREE HE WILL STAMP HIS FEET AND SCREAM AT YOU!!!!!!

 

[Into the Night]

Ok, so you have your own definition of genocide that doesn't include an actual attempt, and intent, to wipe out the group that is the victim of the genocide. That's fine.

This part is correct.

I define genocide in the traditional way, going back to 1948:

The word 'genocide' first entered the English lexicon in 1944, not 1948. It was first used to refer to the killing of Jews simply because they were Jews. This word stems from the Greek 'geno-' (meaning familial relationship, such as a tribe or group related in some way) and '-cide' (killing).

In the Geneva Convention, a definition that is more restrictive is given there, but generally carries the same meaning.

To commit genocide is to act with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Such as the killing of Jews simply because they are Jews.

So, is Israel acting with the intent to destroy, whole or in part, the citizens of Gaza?

No.

Non-beligerent citizens, however, are always casualties in warfare. Every soldier is also a citizen as well. NOTHING in the Geneva convention outlaws war.

On October 7, 2021, Hamas fighters killed about 1,000 civilians in 8 hours, using nothing but handheld guns and knives. If they maintained that rate of murder, that would be 3,000 per day and would total just over 2 million in 2 years since the war started.

Israel, an actual military, with actual military weapons, has killed (last I saw) 74,000 in 2 years.

That's about right.

Why is it that Israel, in their alleged attempt to commit genocide has done such an incredibly poor job at committing genocide when they certainly have the means to do it?

Israel was at war against HAMAS and to a certain degree with those funding HAMAS (Iran).

HAMAS citizens were also mostly belligerents, and those that weren't were put in harms way by HAMAS as a human shield (which violates the Geneva convention, but HAMAS is not a signatory).

Israel has the right to conduct warfare, particularly to remove threats against it, such as the rocket and light air attacks against Israeli citizens.

War isn't pretty. Non-belligerent citizens often get killed in them. The bombings of Dresden, London, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki and the attacks across numerous towns and villages across Europe during WW2 are examples.

HAMAS placed citizens as human shields of military targets. HAMAS kills it's own citizens to this day. It's not as bad as the number of deaths of their own civilians by Pol Pot, Mao, or Stalin has done (all in the millions killed), but that's because HAMAS is much smaller.

 

[Cypress]

You and I don't monitor any chimpanzee societies.

Chimpanzee societies have been monitored by researches for decades.

They will cooperate within family units and their local troop. But they are not bringing meat and bananas to other groups of chimps, let alone to rivals, as a charitable offering

They behave much as humans do.

We have the same instincts of mutual cooperation and mutual defense as chimps. That's self interest, not morality. Morality is based on selfless self sacrifice without the expectation of being repaid in kind


You atheists can't be reasoned with if you're going to cling to the claim that zebras and apes are moral beings with moral agency

 

[Cypress]

I'm not a moral relativist.

I believe morality is a fairly fixed thing.

its a set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

No, try again. Mutual benefit is not morality.

Rationally and scientifically the right choice is eugenics. Expending enormous resources on the physically and mentally disabled, and on people with terminal illnesses is irrational and counterproductive in a scientific Darwinian worldview.

Most posters on this board hardly ever practice the golden rule here. You can't go 60 minutes on this board without getting cussed at, insulted, demeaned .

Obviously, the golden rule is not something rational we are just naturally inclined towards.

 

[Apostle_Frank]

Chimpanzee societies have been monitored by researches for decades.

They will cooperate within family units and their local troop. But they are not bringing meat and bananas to other groups of chimps, let alone to rivals, as a charitable offering

Is that the real indicator of "morality"? That it has to include charitable offerings?

We have the same instincts of mutual cooperation and mutual defense as chimps. That's self interest, not morality.

Why can't morality be self-interest? So many things about life are purely self-interest. Why wouldn't morality be just another item that works like that?

It certainly is to my self-interest to get along with everyone around me, right? And that's true for any animal that lives in a group.

Morality is based on selfless self sacrifice without the expectation of being repaid in kind

I would be very interested to learn the source of this definition. I am not familiar.

 

[gmark77]

No, try again. Mutual benefit is not morality.

Thus sayeth the lord almighty! Fear ye all who tremble before Cypress mighty throne of TROOOOTH.

Rationally and scientifically the right choice is eugenics.

LOL. Way to demonize people you clearly hate. Just like you did to Southerners when you suggested they are all inbred in the other forum.


Why do you hate so many people, Cy? Your lust for "morality" might be more "honest" if you tried NOT hating everyone.

Expending enormous resources on the physically and mentally disabled, and on people with terminal illnesses is irrational and counterproductive in a scientific Darwinian worldview.

Goddamn you have the simplest most cartoonish view of Evolution I've ever read since I stopped debating Creationists!

Most posters on this board hardly ever practice the golden rule here.

You sure as fuck don't.

You can't go 60 minutes on this board without getting cussed at, insulted, demeaned .

Or lied about like you do all the time.

Obviously, the golden rule is not something rational we are just naturally inclined towards.

LOL. You don't fucking give one shit about the Golden Rule, you malevolent hypocrite.

 

[gmark77]

You atheists can't be reasoned with if you don't just accept what I demand you be! You are ebil and I hate you!

ftfy

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

No, try again. Mutual benefit is not morality.

that's not my full statement. its' effectively a strawman argument.

Rationally and scientifically the right choice is eugenics.

no it isn't.

Expending enormous resources on the physically and mentally disabled, and on people with terminal illnesses is irrational and counterproductive in a scientific Darwinian worldview.

unless you as society you want those for yourself and so adopt a golden rule mentality.

Most posters on this board hardly ever practice the golden rule here. You can't go 60 minutes on this board without getting cussed at, insulted, demeaned .

Obviously, the golden rule is not something rational we are just naturally inclined towards.

all of your arguments are stupid and you're a pussy.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Is that the real indicator of "morality"? That it has to include charitable offerings?




Why can't morality be self-interest? So many things about life are purely self-interest. Why wouldn't morality be just another item that works like that?

It certainly is to my self-interest to get along with everyone around me, right? And that's true for any animal that lives in a group.



I would be very interested to learn the source of this definition. I am not familiar.

cypress wants morality to be 'whatever Jews say'.

 

[Into the Night]

Mutual defense of one's family and the herd is not morality. It's self-interest and reciprocity.

It is also morality.

You don't see chimpanzees offering to defend rival packs of chimps. If anything, they will try to steal the territory and resources of other groups of chimpanzees. They only defend family and fellow troop members. That is very Darwinian. That is entirely about protecting and maintaining one's own genetic information.

You see the same thing in Man. Darwin has nothing to do with it.

When Oskar Schindler and Giorgio Perlsca risked their lives to save thousands of complete strangers they were not sitting around thinking about how to make society more stable and more mutually beneficial.

Yes they were. Their actions proved it.

They were witnesses to absolute evil and their conscience could draw a clear demarcation point between absolute right and absolute wrong.

There is no absolute morality.

 

[Into the Night]

Really, is it the role of evolution in morality that upsets you so?

Your Creationist pastor telling you to fight against the eeeebils of evil-lution?

The Theory of Evolution is not a morality. It is a religion.
The Theory of Creation is not morality. It is a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

some standards are not moral,

To you.

or are customs not related to morality.

To you.

"my moral standard is that I can lie to everyone all the time" -- this is an immoral standard, not a moral standard.

Nope. It's a moral standard. It's not one you agree with, but it's a moral standard all the same.

 

[Into the Night]

As a militant atheist,

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'.

you're lying to yourself if you think physical processes of the quarks and electrons that constitute your body give you any ontologically real innate value as an individual human. Your free to delude yourself that your atomic matter has real innate value, but that is just an illusion you allow yourself to believe

Divisional error fallacy.

Your grasping at straws when you tried to equate morality with the herd behavior of zebras.

Strawman fallacy.

Mutual defense and social cooperation within the herd, within the pack, within the flock are strictly Darwinian instinctual behavior for the protection of genetic information within the individuals of that herd.

Darwin did not create instincts.

That's not morality.

It is.

That's self interest. Even Charles Darwin wouldn't have said something as foolish like zebras are moral beings with moral agency.

Omniscience fallacy. You do not get to speak for the dead.

Zebras are herd animals, with their own set of morals. If an individual breaks that morality, it is isolated from the herd (and probably won't last long as a result).

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

To you.

To you.

Nope. It's a moral standard. It's not one you agree with, but it's a moral standard all the same.

morality is objectively determined.

morality is a set of behaviors and attitudes that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

in christianity it's effectively the golden rule.

if something doesn't meet that it's a defacto immoral standard.

yes, you're a moral relativist. I am not.

 

[Into the Night]

Chimpanzee societies have been monitored by researches for decades.

Not really. Only a few have, and those few are used to human interaction, skewing any results of any research.

They will cooperate within family units and their local troop.

Just like Man.

But they are not bringing meat and bananas to other groups of chimps, let alone to rivals, as a charitable offering

Yes they do. They will spend an afternoon ridding another of ticks and fleas. They will rescue one of them it gets into trouble. They also will even feed one another.

We have the same instincts of mutual cooperation and mutual defense as chimps.

Not quite, but pretty close. There are some major differences.

That's self interest, not morality. Morality is based on selfless self sacrifice without the expectation of being repaid in kind

Redefinition fallacy. Charity is not morality, but it may be part of a morality.

You atheists can't be reasoned with

I find reasoning with IBDaMann pretty effective in most cases.

if you're going to cling to the claim that zebras and apes are moral beings with moral agency

They are. I've already explained why.

 

[Into the Night]

No, try again. Mutual benefit is not morality.

It can be part of morality.

Rationally and scientifically the right choice is eugenics.

Science is not a 'right choice' or any choice.
Rationality is not a 'right choice' or any choice.
Buzzword fallacy.

Expending enormous resources on the physically and mentally disabled, and on people with terminal illnesses is irrational and counterproductive in a scientific Darwinian worldview.

Science is not Darwin or anybody else. Science is not people at all.
I see your moral standards include the murder of people merely because they are handicapped in some way.

Most posters on this board hardly ever practice the golden rule here. You can't go 60 minutes on this board without getting cussed at, insulted, demeaned .

Persecution complex.

Obviously, the golden rule is not something rational we are just naturally inclined towards.

Correct. It is taught.