Morality Defined

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It may make sense to you, but it is not a description of Morality.

Yes it is.

Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt on your description and assume that is a correct definition, it still hasn't been explained how this behavior could have originated without original faith and trust.

Trust can be earned.

A lot of things work, that doesn't explain how they came to exist.

In evolution, yes it does.

You continue to focus on the benefits of morality, which is not in question. It's obvious mankind benefits from it, but how did moral behavior begin?

In the animal world.

Man had no natural way of knowing moral behavior would work, it defied the laws of nature.

Even in nature, cooperation works.

No other living creature practices human morality, because it defies nature and natural selection.

Many animals practice varying versions of socially cooperative behavior, and it works. It defies nothing. It makes perfect sense.

Lions and tigers didn't suddenly come to the realization they should enter into social contracts and try to get along, because the theory of natural selection is in play.

But yet, related males form hunting groups for mutual benefit.

Something enabled mankind to come to this realization in the beginning, before any benefit had been realized or before it had been proven to work.

Yes. An advanced brain that can see things from the point of view of another.

Faith and trust developed over time, which enabled men to make this rationalization while other creatures didn't.

Right. It developed over time. This is directly counter to your previous claim that faith and trust had to PRECEDE morality.

No, as I just explained it, in order for Morality to have been rationalized to begin with, mankind first needed faith and trust.

You just said they developed over time. Please get your story straight.

There is no logical way to get there otherwise, as human morals defy Darwin's theory of natural selection.

no they don't.

The person who just keeps saying things with no basis, is you.

You're right. It IS you.

Right, and when you add the caveat of not victimizing outsiders, this is the basis for all organized religion.

Not the religions I know of.

Again, in order for mankind to adopt a behavior which defied natural selection, it required some faith and trust.

Moral behavior doesn't DEFY natural selection.

Without faith and trust, there is no way for man to naturally have known morality would or could work, and it simply would never have been attempted.

Like one of your personalities said, it can develp over time.

No facts, just overblown opinion.... you seem to have this down pat. Sorry AHZ, you can't win debates like this, you have to offer proof, evidence, or at least some half-baked theory as to WHY you make this assertion, and you have failed to do that. Probably because you know you can't.

I've explained the dynamic repeatedly.

No, you haven't.

yes. I have.

It is interesting how far you will go, and how long you will continue to post, in order to establish you are moral. The real question is not how mankind obtained morality, we understand it was through spirituality and the faith and trust it provided for early man, the question is, why is it so important to an Atheist to be seen as "moral" in the eyes of his fellow man? Is it because you know and understand, morality along with spirituality is the only thing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom?

Are you asking?

Since you have abandoned spirituality in any form, you have this need to cling to morality in order to be part of the human species. Perhaps you felt compelled to 'define morality' or REDEFINE morality, because you can't live up to the standards as they currently exist?

The religiously based standards which predominate mankind are piss poor, and people act worse than ever. I offer something better.

You can't live up to your own definition of morality, you constantly attempt to condemn and victimize others, this thread is full of condemnation and victimizing remarks from you, directed at me and people who practice religion. So, you don't even attempt to practice 'morality' as you have defined it! My guess is, because you have no faith and trust, and 'morality' can't exist without it, even a watered-down definition of 'morality'.

Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you, pussyboy.

In essence, this thread and your behavior here, has proven my point and disproved your own. The more you rant and rave against me and religion, the more you defy your own definition of 'morality' and expose this betrayal to the whole world. You can add your own observed behavior to the mountain of irrefutable evidence I have presented here.

Whatever, Spanky. You suck at thinking.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No question mark necessary, grammar queen. An expression of wonder can be written as a question or statement.

Since you've written "I'm done here" about 3-4 times already, I doubt there is any context that could convince me that you understand what it means.

Stick to the morality thread, though; you'd REALLY take a beating on any of the other, more topical threads being debated right now...

It wasn't an expression of wonder, it was a question without a question mark.

I said I was done, if AHZ couldn't find anything more to contribute, but he did, so I am not done.

Thanks for your affirmation that I am kicking AHZ's ass here, but that is obvious to anyone who isn't brain dead. As for other more topical debates, I think I can hold my own, you don't get to be a Living Legend by being stupid. Frankly, I am bored with discussing Obama and McCain, and I am not really interested in the latest dirt on Bush & Co. But don't let that deter you, just go jump in there and give them some of your profound wisdom, I'm sure you won't disappoint us.

 

[Onceler]

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/punctuating-questions.aspx

"When you wonder, your statements might sound like questions, but they're not direct questions, they're indirect questions, and they don't take a question mark. For example, I wonder why he went to the store. It's an indirect question—essentially a statement—so there's no question mark."

Chew on that, clown.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It wasn't an expression of wonder, it was a question without a question mark.

I said I was done, if AHZ couldn't find anything more to contribute, but he did, so I am not done.

Thanks for your affirmation that I am kicking AHZ's ass here, but that is obvious to anyone who isn't brain dead. As for other more topical debates, I think I can hold my own, you don't get to be a Living Legend by being stupid. Frankly, I am bored with discussing Obama and McCain, and I am not really interested in the latest dirt on Bush & Co. But don't let that deter you, just go jump in there and give them some of your profound wisdom, I'm sure you won't disappoint us.

You've lost all grip on reality. How does it feel to be insane?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Trust can be earned.

Yes, but it requires initial FAITH! You can't begin to earn trust until you have FAITH in that trust. That is my point, and you seem to be missing it completely. You have not explained how mankind would have rationally determined morality would or could work, and in order to explain this, you must consider faith and trust.

Many animals practice varying versions of socially cooperative behavior, and it works. It defies nothing. It makes perfect sense.

The fact that many animals practice social cooperation is evidence that human morality is not the same as social cooperation. Many animals may cooperate with each other, but if something happens to change the dynamics of the situation, such as a threat to life or safety, the animals will not maintain socially cooperative behavior because they have no sense of morality.

Faith and trust developed over time, which enabled men to make this rationalization while other creatures didn't.

Right. It developed over time. This is directly counter to your previous claim that faith and trust had to PRECEDE morality.

Faith and trust developed over time, enabling morality. If it happened over time to enable morality, I think it's safe to say it PRECEDED it! Morality couldn't exist without initial faith and trust. In fact, morality by even your inane definition, can't exist without faith and trust. There is no way to rationalize morality or believe it could work, unless you first have faith and trust.

Not the religions I know of.

Let's be clear, I have not stated that all religions adhere to your personal opinion of what is moral. I have correctly stated that all religions are organized and constructed for the benefit of all mankind, they believe their view of morality is best for all mankind, that is why they advocate their particular religious beliefs. It is not up to you to decide if they meet the criteria you have set, or fit your definition of morality, that has nothing to do with their intent and purpose. I agree, many religious beliefs regarding morality are contrary to my own personal view of what is moral, but that doesn't negate the fact that they established their religious views with the intention of benefit to man, and not the detriment of man. So far, you have given not one example of a religion founded for the express purpose of detriment to mankind, and you simply can't give such an example because it doesn't exist.

Moral behavior doesn't DEFY natural selection.

Yes, human morality certainly does. I don't know about your lose definition of morality which isn't morality at all. The human attribute of morality is so much more than mutual cooperation, it involves the conscious awareness of consequence, it involves the rational thought of moral 'right' and 'wrong' which other creatures simply do not have. The reason they do not have this and it hasn't "evolved" in other species, is simple, they lack trust and faith which came through spirituality.

Morality is not a hereditary attribute, you don't behave morally because you had a mom and dad with strong moral convictions. This is easily proven. In order for Morality to have been acquired through natural selection, it would have to be hereditary. Natural selection is the theory by which animals evolved through adaptation of beneficial hereditary attributes or died out due to a lack of these attributes. Morality is not a hereditary attribute. Did morality facilitate the advancement of humans as a species? I think it's clear it has, but this was not the product of natural selection, it is an acquired attribute, or "artificial selection" as opposed to natural. If you believe Darwin, it is inherently impossible to consider morality as the product of natural selection.

The religiously based standards which predominate mankind are piss poor, and people act worse than ever. I offer something better.

You've offered nothing more than a baseless opinion of a misinterpreted definition, and you can't even live up to that standard of "morality" here. You are a joke!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Yes, but it requires initial FAITH! You can't begin to earn trust until you have FAITH in that trust.

Pointless word games. I don't play that.

That is my point, and you seem to be missing it completely. You have not explained how mankind would have rationally determined morality would or could work, and in order to explain this, you must consider faith and trust.

Im not missing anything. You're a human duncecap.

The fact that many animals practice social cooperation is evidence that human morality is not the same as social cooperation.

It's very similar.

Many animals may cooperate with each other, but if something happens to change the dynamics of the situation, such as a threat to life or safety, the animals will not maintain socially cooperative behavior because they have no sense of morality.

As with human moraliy. When people you trust abuse that trust and turn around and screw you. You no longer have to affiliate with them or cooperate with them. You can tell them to f'off. Trust is broken.

Faith and trust developed over time, enabling morality. If it happened over time to enable morality, I think it's safe to say it PRECEDED it! Morality couldn't exist without initial faith and trust. In fact, morality by even your inane definition, can't exist without faith and trust. There is no way to rationalize morality or believe it could work, unless you first have faith and trust.

you're boring and stupid.

Let's be clear, I have not stated that all religions adhere to your personal opinion of what is moral. I have correctly stated that all religions are organized and constructed for the benefit of all mankind, they believe their view of morality is best for all mankind, that is why they advocate their particular religious beliefs.

Wrong again, turdbanger.

It is not up to you to decide if they meet the criteria you have set, or fit your definition of morality, that has nothing to do with their intent and purpose.

yet, i graciously accept the responsibility of judging them. Just send money as thanks for my efforts.

I agree, many religious beliefs regarding morality are contrary to my own personal view of what is moral, but that doesn't negate the fact that they established their religious views with the intention of benefit to man, and not the detriment of man.

You really don't know what was in their mushy theocratic skulls.

So far, you have given not one example of a religion founded for the express purpose of detriment to mankind, and you simply can't give such an example because it doesn't exist.

Islam's penchant for killing infidels is obviously not best for all.

Yes, human morality certainly does. I don't know about your lose definition of morality which isn't morality at all. The human attribute of morality is so much more than mutual cooperation, it involves the conscious awareness of consequence,

That consequence is the analysis of the benefit.

it involves the rational thought of moral 'right' and 'wrong' which other creatures simply do not have.

Some men do not have them.

The reason they do not have this and it hasn't "evolved" in other species, is simple, they lack trust and faith which came through spirituality.

Spirituality is not the only source of trust. That's merely a stupidity you keep repeating.

Morality is not a hereditary attribute, you don't behave morally because you had a mom and dad with strong moral convictions.

To a degree, levels of aggessiveness and criminality do have a biological component.

This is easily proven. In order for Morality to have been acquired through natural selection, it would have to be hereditary.

Behaviors taught from generation to generation can feed into the evolutionary cycle of humans AND animals.

Natural selection is the theory by which animals evolved through adaptation of beneficial hereditary attributes or died out due to a lack of these attributes. Morality is not a hereditary attribute.

But behaviors can be taught from generation to generation, in humans and some animals.

Did morality facilitate the advancement of humans as a species?

Yes.

I think it's clear it has, but this was not the product of natural selection, it is an acquired attribute, or "artificial selection" as opposed to natural.

Just because it's 'social' or 'cultural', doesn't make it artificial. It's just as real and impactful as having greater strength, stronger jaws, or sharper teeth.

If you believe Darwin, it is inherently impossible to consider morality as the product of natural selection.

No it's not.

You've offered nothing more than a baseless opinion of a misinterpreted definition, and you can't even live up to that standard of "morality" here. You are a joke!

Yet, we're all laughing at you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, but it requires initial FAITH! You can't begin to earn trust until you have FAITH in that trust.


Pointless word games. I don't play that.

Not a word game, a fact of the matter you don't want to acknowledge.

That is my point, and you seem to be missing it completely. You have not explained how mankind would have rationally determined morality would or could work, and in order to explain this, you must consider faith and trust.


Im not missing anything. You're a human duncecap.

Again, your rebuttal amounts to... "No, I am right and you are a moron." I'm just as sorry as I can be AHZ, but this is not how to win a debate by any standard. You have to present some rational evidence to support your contention, otherwise, it is what we commonly call a "baseless opinion". Now, you are full of baseless opinions, I will give you that, but you haven't prevailed in this debate because you lack substance to support your views.

As for the rest of your dissected parsing of my previous post, I will save myself the trouble of responding, because you really don't offer any new information and haven't refuted a thing I've said. The fact that you continue to quote single sentences or parts of sentences without reading and comprehending the entire statement I make, is evidence you are not retaining what is being said. You are simply acting emotionally and reacting with nothing more than a flurry of insults and insistence you are right in the face of the facts presented. What is the fundamental purpose of me continuing to post? You've already closed your mind to outside thought, you aren't interested in what I am saying, or the points I am making, you are simply busy thinking up how you can insult me next. You are just going to dissect my comments into 50,000 parts and interject some irrelevant insult and evidence of your bigoted viewpoint. You aren't interested in anything more, and you continue to avoid the questions I have asked you directly.

Morality as practiced by humans is not a product of natural selection because it is not a hereditary attribute.

Morality, even by your own definition, is not possible without initial faith and trust in something.

Morality is not the same as mutual social cooperation, despite your contention it is, because we see mutual social cooperation in animals who do not behave morally.

It defies logic for mankind to have realized the benefit of moral behavior, before the moral behavior was realized.

It defies nature for any animal to behave morally without initial faith and trust.

It defies Darwin's theories for mankind to have rationalized morality with no means to believe or trust it would work in practice.

Your own behavior defies your own definition of morality!

These are the points you have failed to address with any tangible information to the contrary, and you simply can't. All you can do is continue to parse my statements and pretend you are winning something you aren't, and hurl insult after insult at me because I am right and you obviously know it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just because it's 'social' or 'cultural', doesn't make it artificial. It's just as real and impactful as having greater strength, stronger jaws, or sharper teeth.

No, Darwin defines "natural selection" as opposed to "artificial selection" and both are real and obtainable by any species. The result is not the issue, the origin is what we are discussing. It is easy to see how beneficial morality has been to mankind, but this doesn't explain how morality originally emerged in mankind. It can't be a "natural selection" because unlike stronger teeth and jaws, morality has no physiological benefit until it is put into practice, and moral behavior is not hereditary. This behavior would require rational thought and understanding based in faith and trust which was acquired through spiritual belief and over an extended period of time.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Not a word game, a fact of the matter you don't want to acknowledge.

Nope. It's an idiotic word game.

Again, your rebuttal amounts to... "No, I am right and you are a moron." I'm just as sorry as I can be AHZ, but this is not how to win a debate by any standard.

I won a long time ago. I'm just playing with your ignorant ass now.

You have to present some rational evidence to support your contention, otherwise, it is what we commonly call a "baseless opinion".

I've already explained why it's ultimately rational. Some retarded agenda of yours keeps you from affirming the obvious truth of my statements.

Now, you are full of baseless opinions, I will give you that, but you haven't prevailed in this debate because you lack substance to support your views.

oh, but I have.

As for the rest of your dissected parsing of my previous post, I will save myself the trouble of responding, because you really don't offer any new information and haven't refuted a thing I've said.

i've effectively rebutted your every idiotic remark, and identified all your irrelevant games as such.

The fact that you continue to quote single sentences or parts of sentences without reading and comprehending the entire statement I make, is evidence you are not retaining what is being said.

You wish.

You are simply acting emotionally and reacting with nothing more than a flurry of insults and insistence you are right in the face of the facts presented.

You have presented nothing but word games and spurious assertions about what must preceed what, in great error.

What is the fundamental purpose of me continuing to post?

You must answer that one, grasshopper.

You've already closed your mind to outside thought, you aren't interested in what I am saying, or the points I am making, you are simply busy thinking up how you can insult me next.

All your points are bad.

You are just going to dissect my comments into 50,000 parts and interject some irrelevant insult and evidence of your bigoted viewpoint. You aren't interested in anything more, and you continue to avoid the questions I have asked you directly.

Nope. I've addressed them. and you just go back to your word games and stupid ideas.

Morality as practiced by humans is not a product of natural selection because it is not a hereditary attribute.

Culture is heriditary through the mechanism of human learning. the ability to learn is physical adaptation, except for you. For you, the ability to learn is a pipe dream.

Morality, even by your own definition, is not possible without initial faith and trust in something.

It is possible through observation of what happens when cooperation occurs, and through transmission of these learned benefits through generations.

Morality is not the same as mutual social cooperation, despite your contention it is, because we see mutual social cooperation in animals who do not behave morally.

It is a form of morality. Sorry.

It defies logic for mankind to have realized the benefit of moral behavior, before the moral behavior was realized.

They evolved together, in a feedback loop.

It defies nature for any animal to behave morally without initial faith and trust.

No it doesn't.

It defies Darwin's theories for mankind to have rationalized morality with no means to believe or trust it would work in practice.

Morality and the benefits of morality evolved together.

Your own behavior defies your own definition of morality!

No it doesn't.

These are the points you have failed to address with any tangible information to the contrary, and you simply can't. All you can do is continue to parse my statements and pretend you are winning something you aren't, and hurl insult after insult at me because I am right and you obviously know it.

I just addressed them all anew, for your education. You are obviously a prattling moron.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is possible through observation of what happens when cooperation occurs, and through transmission of these learned benefits through generations.

I suspect, before morality existed and the rules of nature prevailed, there was nothing to observe. Again, you are jumping ahead to explain how morality may have flourished after it was realized, you haven't explained how it originated. This is why your theory is failing, it has no basis in science, reality, or nature. Darwin's natural selection theory says animals retain hereditary attributes needed for the survival of the species, but there is no basis for retaining an emotional behavior which has no physical benefit, especially if it has not been practiced.

Look.... We know the dinosaurs became extinct because a big rock hit the earth and changed the climatic conditions on the planet. (or at least, this is the theory.) What you are essentially arguing is, the dinosaurs would have dug big holes to hide in or gone into caves and caverns which they had previously stocked with ample supplies, in order to survive. Obviously, they didn't do this, not because they wouldn't have been physically capable of performing these tasks, but because they didn't have any way of understanding what was going to happen. You simply can't argue that man adopted morality because he just knew it would work to benefit mankind, he had no way of knowing this. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, it didn't ultimately save them from their demise because they were not capable of understanding what they needed to do to survive. Rationalized human thought was the root of morality, but the basis for humans ever attempting to practice morality, was faith, trust, and belief in the realization of it. It didn't happen as part of natural evolution, just as the dinosaurs didn't know the benefit of digging giant holes to hide in. It is naturally impossible for them to have known, just as it is naturally impossible for humans to have known the benefit of moral behavior.

What you have tried to do, is rationalize how mankind could have become moral without any spiritual basis or faith and trust in something. You have taken the backwards approach of... I feel this way, so that must be so. You've constructed a fictitious scenario to support your irrational view.

If you read my argument in total, not in snippets... you will see that I am not rambling on and on about God and what He bestowed on mankind, or how Morality is some miraculous gift given to us by our Creator. I have simply used your own "religion" of Science to refute your position and show how it is invalid. I understand you don't like this, I would hate for someone to show me up with my own faith, but that is precisely what has been done here. Your position defies Darwin, it defies nature, it defies Science, and it defies all common sense reasoning. The only way you can make it work logically, is to look at Morality AFTER the fact! AFTER man had practiced Morality, THEN you can make an argument to rationalize your position. But even then, you can't show where morality doesn't require initial faith and trust, and you can't even uphold your own watered-down and vague definition of morality.


What I wonder is, why does an Atheist go to such extremes of trying to rationalize the irrational, to show he is moral? Why does this matter to you? I mean, we live, we die, and whatever we do here is really irrelevant, so why does Morality even matter to an Atheist? Why is it so fundamentally important to you, that you will deny Science, Darwin, Nature, Reality, whatever.... just to make some irrelevant point about your own personal sense of morality?

What I think is, you are not really as 'Atheist' as you proclaim yourself to be. I think you believe in God just as I do, except you resent and hate Him. Something happened in your life to prejudice your innocent conscious awareness from when you were born. I don't know exactly what that was, abuse as a child, neglect, or traumatic events, are often the culprit. For whatever reason, you have chosen to abandon God, and wage a personal vendetta against Him, because you are hurt and hurting. This sometimes involves posting your own justifications for your beliefs in a manner which you think you can gain support from others with, thus reassuring you of your lack of faith and trust in God. This is why it is so important to you to post such threads, it helps you to cope with what you have chosen to do, and know is wrong.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I suspect, before morality existed and the rules of nature prevailed, there was nothing to observe.

That's a retarded suspicion.

Again, you are jumping ahead to explain how morality may have flourished after it was realized, you haven't explained how it originated.

It originated in the animal world. We are animals, and further refined upon their primitive versions of morality. And some humans still exhibit primitive versions of morality.

This is why your theory is failing, it has no basis in science, reality, or nature.

My theory isn't failing.

Darwin's natural selection theory says animals retain hereditary attributes needed for the survival of the species, but there is no basis for retaining an emotional behavior which has no physical benefit, especially if it has not been practiced.

Social behaviors can be physically beneficial, and can be transmitted socially, even in some animals.

Look.... We know the dinosaurs became extinct because a big rock hit the earth and changed the climatic conditions on the planet. (or at least, this is the theory.) What you are essentially arguing is, the dinosaurs would have dug big holes to hide in or gone into caves and caverns which they had previously stocked with ample supplies, in order to survive.

Look, at how stupid and desperate you've become.

Obviously, they didn't do this, not because they wouldn't have been physically capable of performing these tasks, but because they didn't have any way of understanding what was going to happen.

This metaphor is stupid and illustrates nothing but your idiocy.

You simply can't argue that man adopted morality because he just knew it would work to benefit mankind, he had no way of knowing this.

I don't think he just became moral one day. It was feedback cycle of experimental or learned behaviors and subsequent population numbers reflecting the results of those ways of behaving.

The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, it didn't ultimately save them from their demise because they were not capable of understanding what they needed to do to survive.

You are monumentally retarded.

Rationalized human thought was the root of morality, but the basis for humans ever attempting to practice morality, was faith, trust, and belief in the realization of it. It didn't happen as part of natural evolution, just as the dinosaurs didn't know the benefit of digging giant holes to hide in.

Social evolution is part of evolution.

It is naturally impossible for them to have known, just as it is naturally impossible for humans to have known the benefit of moral behavior.

But they can observe benefits from cooperations, and with a brain capable of generalizing, they can use cooperation in new contexts.

What you have tried to do, is rationalize how mankind could have become moral without any spiritual basis or faith and trust in something.

Spirituality is not necessary to observe cooperation and generalize it to other areas of life.

You have taken the backwards approach of... I feel this way, so that must be so. You've constructed a fictitious scenario to support your irrational view.

No. I haven't.

If you read my argument in total, not in snippets... you will see that I am not rambling on and on about God and what He bestowed on mankind, or how Morality is some miraculous gift given to us by our Creator. I have simply used your own "religion" of Science to refute your position and show how it is invalid.

You're ranting on about "spiritiuality", and you have failed to show how my position is invalid.

I understand you don't like this, I would hate for someone to show me up with my own faith, but that is precisely what has been done here.

No. You're just ranting on like a deranged fool, devoid of all sense.

Your position defies Darwin, it defies nature, it defies Science, and it defies all common sense reasoning. The only way you can make it work logically, is to look at Morality AFTER the fact!

You keep repeating this idiocy. It's feedback cycle of behavior and learning from behavior, and that behavior effecting the suvivability of practitioners.

AFTER man had practiced Morality, THEN you can make an argument to rationalize your position.

It was a complex interaction that evolved morality. It wasn't like flipping a switch as you portray it, with a clear before and after.

But even then, you can't show where morality doesn't require initial faith and trust, and you can't even uphold your own watered-down and vague definition of morality.

It doesn't require faith. My definition is quite specific.

What I wonder is, why does an Atheist go to such extremes of trying to rationalize the irrational, to show he is moral?

My statements are not irrational. And I make them to free us from the domination of deranged theocrats and psychotic new agers like yourself.

Why does this matter to you? I mean, we live, we die, and whatever we do here is really irrelevant, so why does Morality even matter to an Atheist?

I care about peopele. Not dogma.

Why is it so fundamentally important to you, that you will deny Science, Darwin, Nature, Reality, whatever.... just to make some irrelevant point about your own personal sense of morality?

I have denied none of those things.

What I think is, you are not really as 'Atheist' as you proclaim yourself to be. I think you believe in God just as I do, except you resent and hate Him.

I'm actually an agnostic. But i know what morality is, and it does not require spirituality or religion.

Something happened in your life to prejudice your innocent conscious awareness from when you were born.

Not really.

I don't know exactly what that was, abuse as a child, neglect, or traumatic events, are often the culprit.

Nope. None of that.

For whatever reason, you have chosen to abandon God, and wage a personal vendetta against Him, because you are hurt and hurting. This sometimes involves posting your own justifications for your beliefs in a manner which you think you can gain support from others with, thus reassuring you of your lack of faith and trust in God. This is why it is so important to you to post such threads, it helps you to cope with what you have chosen to do, and know is wrong.

Still wrong. Thanks for playing, but you are the weakest link. Goodday.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Darwin's natural selection theory says animals retain hereditary attributes needed for the survival of the species, but there is no basis for retaining an emotional behavior which has no physical benefit, especially if it has not been practiced.

Social behaviors can be physically beneficial, and can be transmitted socially, even in some animals.

That 'social behaviors can be beneficial', does not explain how they originated. If human morality did not exist, what did man "observe" and how did he rationalize the practicing of morals? I hate to impose the "chicken or egg" question here, but really... if there wasn't moral behavior to observe, what did they observe? Nature dictates that the STRONGEST person prevails, not the most MORAL! It defies nature to rationalize morality without faith and trust. Therefore, it also defies rational logic.

Yes indeed, mankind DID rationalize morality and realize the benefits of it, after observation of spiritual rituals and customs enabled them to have faith and trust in their fellow man. You want to skip ahead to after this has occurred and make some profound statement against spirituality, but you can't do that and remain honest to facts.

The unique human attribute of morality is profoundly tied to the unique attribute of spirituality, because that is the mechanism which enabled the trust and faith, which in turn, enabled man to rationalize morality to begin with. This fact you can't escape.

Morality is contrary to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and Darwin would classify it as an "artificial selection", which is also possible to obtain by the species, it just doesn't relate to the physical aspects of the natural survival, and has more to do with the environmental and cultural conditions surrounding said species. Morality, a human behavior with no physical purpose, is not a "natural selection" and can't be, according to Darwin himself, yet this is what you are continuing to argue.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Hey Ass, why don't you go slap some women around?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hey Ass, why don't you go slap some women around?

I do not believe in violence against women, despite unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on my character.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

That 'social behaviors can be beneficial', does not explain how they originated. If human morality did not exist, what did man "observe" and how did he rationalize the practicing of morals?

He either observed animals, or was able to generalize the loving bonds and cooperativeness of family relattionships to new individuals and new situations.

I hate to impose the "chicken or egg" question here, but really... if there wasn't moral behavior to observe, what did they observe? Nature dictates that the STRONGEST person prevails, not the most MORAL! It defies nature to rationalize morality without faith and trust. Therefore, it also defies rational logic.

Morality and cooperation is a strength.

Yes indeed, mankind DID rationalize morality and realize the benefits of it, after observation of spiritual rituals and customs enabled them to have faith and trust in their fellow man.

LOL. Laughable. You're simply an imbecile.

You want to skip ahead to after this has occurred and make some profound statement against spirituality, but you can't do that and remain honest to facts.

Yes I can. And I have.

The unique human attribute of morality is profoundly tied to the unique attribute of spirituality, because that is the mechanism which enabled the trust and faith, which in turn, enabled man to rationalize morality to begin with. This fact you can't escape.

Nope. Wrong and idiotic. Morality, or cooperation, was extant in animals and was refined even moreso in man, do to his ability to apply animalistic or familial cooperation in new situations, with new individuals.

Morality is contrary to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and Darwin would classify it as an "artificial selection", which is also possible to obtain by the species, it just doesn't relate to the physical aspects of the natural survival, and has more to do with the environmental and cultural conditions surrounding said species.

It doesn't matter what you call it. It's real and it matters.

Morality, a human behavior with no physical purpose, is not a "natural selection" and can't be, according to Darwin himself, yet this is what you are continuing to argue.

Darwin is not the authority on all things regarding cultural evolution.


You're fisted again.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie says "Man learned cooperation from observing rituals". LOL.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Another post with nothing but fluff and self-aggrandizing bullshit.
No basis for your arguments.
Nothing but personal insult and contempt for the truth.

You have officially lost this debate, sorry.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Another post with nothing but fluff and self-aggrandizing bullshit.
No basis for your arguments.
Nothing but personal insult and contempt for the truth.

You have officially lost this debate, sorry.

LOL. Do you still gargle sack regularly?

 

[a11n]

Eugenics was supported by those that saw themselves as being from "better stock" then others. It extended into sterilization of people based on disease, mental ability and race. The short version was that the human race could be improved by breeding the better people and not mental defectives and others (it was a long list) to reproduce

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Eugenics was supported by those that saw themselves as being from "better stock" then others. It extended into sterilization of people based on disease, mental ability and race. The short version was that the human race could be improved by breeding the better people and not mental defectives and others (it was a long list) to reproduce

Yeah. Google Margaret Sanger, The founder of Planned Parenthood. She had lots of nazi friends.