Morality Defined

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What about MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL do you not understand?

There is often no mutual benefit to morality. When Jimmah Carter builds those houses for poor folks, he is not being mutually benefited for his work. Someone gets a house, he gets to build it, there is no mutual benefit to that. He does it because of his morals based in spiritual belief he will be rewarded in heaven for it.

Nope. This thread is about what it is.

Yep, this thread is about how your definition of morality is shallow and similar to the morality found in wild packs of wolves.

No it wouldn't. People can learn through experience to trust each other.

How would you possibly facilitate such experience without original faith or trust?

These standards are higher than religious standards. Judaism is racist. Islam kills infidels. And christianity has been hijacked by fascists.

You think poorly.

No, I think fine, you are just closed minded and arrogant about it. You are perfectly entitled to form your own moral code, after all, Hitler had a moral code. There is nothing that can deny you the right to define morality to suit your own ideas of what morality should be, I think we all do that. But you simply can't support an argument that morality resulted through evolution without the presence of spirituality and without original faith and trust in something. It defies rational logic, it defies common sense, and most importantly for you, it defies the very principles of Darwin's theories, and he say as much. Attributes which do not contribute to the propagation of the species are discarded through evolution, and new attributes are based on the need and requirement of the attribute for survival. Such is not proven with Morality, it is a purely psychological behavior with no fundamental physical requirement, as stated is needed by Darwin himself.

It simply defies Darwin's principles that man would have just one day realized he should behave morally and have faith that other men would behave morally toward him. There is no logical reason for man to have 'evolved' this into his mind when everything in nature contradicted the idea. Again, Darwin never contends that attributes just come from thin air, they have to have a basis and foundation to emerge. In order for Morality to emerge, it required faith and trust, there is simply no other way to explain it or rationalize it.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There is often no mutual benefit to morality.

But MOST often there is. And when there is not, i question whether it is morality, or just someone trying to pull a fast one on you through theocratic mind control.

When Jimmah Carter builds those houses for poor folks, he is not being mutually benefited for his work.

He gets the self-satisfaction of feeling good about himself. And were he down and out, he would also be eligible for those programs.

Someone gets a house, he gets to build it, there is no mutual benefit to that. He does it because of his morals based in spiritual belief he will be rewarded in heaven for it.

He gets to feel good about himself. He also assisted the military industrial complex in it's killing agenda. Sometimes people who do bad things go to an extreme in the other direction to assuage their guilt. The most moral thing is to "do no harm".

Yep, this thread is about how your definition of morality is shallow and similar to the morality found in wild packs of wolves.

No. It's about how morality is a set of behaviors which facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

How would you possibly facilitate such experience without original faith or trust?

By observing how when you go around trying to take everyone's stuff that you get your ass kicked a lot.

No, I think fine, you are just closed minded and arrogant about it.

Nope, you're a simian sucking retread.

You are perfectly entitled to form your own moral code, after all, Hitler had a moral code.

oh no hitler. Anyone with a non religion based moral code MUST be Hitler. You're a friggin genius.

There is nothing that can deny you the right to define morality to suit your own ideas of what morality should be, I think we all do that.

Thanks man. I appreciate the freedom of thought.

But you simply can't support an argument that morality resulted through evolution without the presence of spirituality and without original faith and trust in something.

Yes I can. I've done so. yes we can.

It defies rational logic, it defies common sense, and most importantly for you, it defies the very principles of Darwin's theories, and he say as much.

No it doesn't x 3.

Attributes which do not contribute to the propagation of the species are discarded through evolution, and new attributes are based on the need and requirement of the attribute for survival.

But morality DOES contribute to the propagation of the species. So your cold cocked right in the face on that one.

Such is not proven with Morality, it is a purely psychological behavior with no fundamental physical requirement, as stated is needed by Darwin himself.

It is proven with morality. It does require a brain that can run scenarios from other points of view.

Darwin is not the last word on evolution. But worship his pole if you want to. May Day. May day.

It simply defies Darwin's principles that man would have just one day realized he should behave morally and have faith that other men would behave morally toward him.

I never said he "one day realized it". I said we had versions of morality from before we were even human.

There is no logical reason for man to have 'evolved' this into his mind when everything in nature contradicted the idea. Again, Darwin never contends that attributes just come from thin air, they have to have a basis and foundation to emerge. In order for Morality to emerge, it required faith and trust, there is simply no other way to explain it or rationalize it.

Yes. There is. Moral behavior and a brain to contemplate complex social interactions increases the survivability of the species.

you've been reamed multiply. You probably need rectal reconstruction at this point.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

After this thread and discovering Dixies "spiritualism", I don't even believe he's from the south. He's some kind of neoglobalist fascistocratic gaea worshipper, or something.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

A pretty girl is like a violent crime
If you do it wrong you could do time
But if you do it right it is sublime

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

A pretty girl is like a violent crime
If you do it wrong you could do time
But if you do it right it is sublime

Remember, Mutual Benefit. She gets hers too. It's the only moral option.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But MOST often there is. And when there is not, i question whether it is morality, or just someone trying to pull a fast one on you through theocratic mind control.

No, most often there is not, and when there is, I question whether it is morality for the sake of self-benefit, which is not the reason or purpose of behaving morally.

He gets the self-satisfaction of feeling good about himself.

So he gets a feeling and they get a house, how is that mutually beneficial?

No. It's about how morality is a set of behaviors which facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

Nope, that is a definition of pack mentality, which is amoral, and has little to do with morality. It is the means by which creatures of similarity sometimes function, ants do it, dogs and wolves do it, many primates do it, but this doesn't come close to defining human morality, sorry.

But morality DOES contribute to the propagation of the species. So your cold cocked right in the face on that one.

Well, no it doesn't and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it. Until you can show some evidence to support it, you are cold cocking yourself in the face. Morality has no tangible physical benefit. It results in benefit to mankind when practiced, both physical and non-physical, but the conditional behavior itself has no physical benefit to man. You want to leap past this and point to how morality benefits man, but that isn't addressing how it would have originated. When you consider how it may have originated, all roads lead to spirituality and the beliefs, rituals, and customs observed, which enabled a bonding of trust, which in turn, lead to morality. There is no evolutionary explanation, morality is not physically required by man, in fact, many a man has survived just fine without it.

I never said he "one day realized it". I said we had versions of morality from before we were even human.

I suppose you know this because you were there? Or maybe you read a book by someone who was there? Okay.... go back to "before we were human" ...don't know when that was, it hasn't ever been established that we were anything else... but go back to this time and place, and try to logically think about how mankind would have known or thought to construct a social contract or believe his neighbor would respond to his display of respect and considerations? It defies nature, all other animals have animal instinct. They kill when they need to, and show no remorse, they do not practice morality, nor do they trust and have faith in what their neighbors will do.

Morality does exist, and it did come about a long time ago, this is for certain. When examining with an open mind, how this behavioral condition may have developed, we can't deny science and nature, and we can't assume man "just knew" or had the "default setting to trust" unless of course, he was given this set of values by God, which isn't what I think you are trying to argue here.

According to Darwin, the species would not have naturally adapted this behavior, it defies any logic and reasoning to believe this, unless you want to believe that man was bestowed some inner-wisdom to know he could trust others to behave morally, which again leads us to God, and I thought you were Atheist?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No, most often there is not, and when there is, I question whether it is morality for the sake of self-benefit, which is not the reason or purpose of behaving morally.

In a way it is. when we act morally towards others, it facilitates a return of that sort of behavior towards ourselves.

So he gets a feeling and they get a house, how is that mutually beneficial?

yes. They're both getting what they want.

Nope, that is a definition of pack mentality, which is amoral, and has little to do with morality.

It's leaning towards a higher morality. Packs cooperate for mutual benefit. Some human morality is exactly llike a pack mentality. Like the gangs you mentioned. But it is not moral according to me, because gangs generally victimize individuals not in the gang. So there is no mutual benefit there for all individuals.

It is the means by which creatures of similarity sometimes function, ants do it, dogs and wolves do it, many primates do it, but this doesn't come close to defining human morality, sorry.

And humans do it.

Well, no it doesn't and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

Well. Yes it does. No matter how many times you want to deny it.

Until you can show some evidence to support it, you are cold cocking yourself in the face.

I have explained the dynamic repeatedly. and it is rational. I remain a person who has cold cocked you in the face, not myself.

Morality has no tangible physical benefit.

Yes it does.

It results in benefit to mankind when practiced, both physical and non-physical, but the conditional behavior itself has no physical benefit to man.

You just contradicted yourself. You said it has benefit, both PHYSICAL and non physical. Then you said it has not physical benefit. You're losing it, theofascist.

You want to leap past this and point to how morality benefits man, but that isn't addressing how it would have originated.

It originated in the mutually beneficially relationships observed in lower animal species. It has been with us since before we even walked up right, to a degree.

When you consider how it may have originated, all roads lead to spirituality and the beliefs, rituals, and customs observed, which enabled a bonding of trust, which in turn, lead to morality.

those bonds of trust do not require spirituality, or rituals, or customs. You had none of those before you trusted your mother.

There is no evolutionary explanation, morality is not physically required by man, in fact, many a man has survived just fine without it.

It's not physically required. But it evolved. and those who behaved morally thrived.

I suppose you know this because you were there? Or maybe you read a book by someone who was there? Okay.... go back to "before we were human" ...don't know when that was, it hasn't ever been established that we were anything else... but go back to this time and place, and try to logically think about how mankind would have known or thought to construct a social contract or believe his neighbor would respond to his display of respect and considerations? It defies nature, all other animals have animal instinct. They kill when they need to, and show no remorse, they do not practice morality, nor do they trust and have faith in what their neighbors will do.

So now only eyewitness testimony is permissible in the field of social anthropology. You're a joke.

We evolved from lower species. Everyone pretty much accepts that as a fact. are you a creationist freak?

Morality does exist, and it did come about a long time ago, this is for certain. When examining with an open mind, how this behavioral condition may have developed, we can't deny science and nature, and we can't assume man "just knew" or had the "default setting to trust" unless of course, he was given this set of values by God, which isn't what I think you are trying to argue here.

It evolved without god in creatures. It's behaviors that lead to mutually beneficial and cooperative relationships. Take your god lies to someplace rife with idiots. Maybe you can become their high priest. Here, you're just considered a cretin.

According to Darwin, the species would not have naturally adapted this behavior, it defies any logic and reasoning to believe this, unless you want to believe that man was bestowed some inner-wisdom to know he could trust others to behave morally, which again leads us to God, and I thought you were Atheist?

It does not defy reason. Cooperation works. I am an atheist. you're an idiot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's leaning towards a higher morality. Packs cooperate for mutual benefit. Some human morality is exactly llike a pack mentality. Like the gangs you mentioned. But it is not moral according to me, because gangs generally victimize individuals not in the gang. So there is no mutual benefit there for all individuals.

Groups that practice morality for the benefit of all individuals, are commonly referred to as Religious Organizations.

You just contradicted yourself. You said it has benefit, both PHYSICAL and non physical. Then you said it has not physical benefit. You're losing it, theofascist.

Morality only has benefit when it is practiced. It has no physical benefit before it is practiced, and no logical physiological reasoning to justify it before it is acquired. This is where your concept utterly fails. There would have been no physical reason for mankind to have 'evolved' morality.

It evolved without god in creatures. It's behaviors that lead to mutually beneficial and cooperative relationships.

Again, mutual cooperation is not Morality. You keep confusing "pack mentality" with Morals. I have not argued for God here, I merely pointed out that God would have to exist and bestow man with some secret inner knowledge and understanding, for man to have ever attempted behaving morally, if it was something man gained through natural evolution. Perhaps that is what happened? I wasn't there, so I am not sure. Maybe God planted the idea in our brains when he created us, and we just knew that we could behave morally toward each other and it would be beneficial?

From a Scientific standpoint, we can't factor God into things, we must look for answers. I can't accept that man just somehow magically knew he could trust his fellow man and behave morally toward him, and that his fellow man would reciprocate and this would all culminate in forming Morality. To me, that is making assumptions not based in science, and only based in notions of religious belief. From a purely scientific, Darwinist point of view, it seems to me much more likely that groups formed, congregated, and assimilated, based on the observation of spiritual beliefs and customs of others, which enabled trust and faith, which fostered Moral viewpoints, which lead to Religion.

Isn't it funny, you are arguing a viewpoint on Morality which would require God's intervention to enable mankind to rationalize it or attempt it, and my viewpoint doesn't require God, but merely the rational observation of spiritual rituals and customs which fostered trust and faith. That is really ironic to me!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let' take a logical look at how Morality may have originated. Imagine two cave men wandering through the wilderness. One cave man (call him Ug) doesn't believe in anything spiritual, he is just an animal like all other animals, trying to survive and propagate. The other cave man (call him Og) is a member of a tribe who, for whatever reasons, worships the sun as a God, it is the giver and taker of everything he knows and understands, and he and his tribe have adapted numerous customs and rituals to pay their respects to this power. During their hunting, and unaware of each other, Og mistakingly wounds Ug! At first, Ug doesn't know what to think, is he about to die? Will this other human kill him off now? He would certainly do so, because that is how it works in nature, animals have no natural inclination to be compassionate. But Og, knowing and understanding that his Sun God would be disappointed he had used his skills to harm another, goes to the aid of Ug and brings him back to his camp, where the entire tribe nurses him back to health. Ug goes on his way, but when he returns to his tribe, he has an amazing story of how he barely escaped death, and how this other human didn't behave in the typical natural way he had expected. Ug's tribe thinks this was very nice, and decides they will adopt the same way with others. Through these examples, more people are exposed to it and observe it, and the idea catches on, pretty soon, you have mankind practicing morality and thriving.

Now, maybe the story doesn't involve a wounded hunter, maybe it is some poor soul who was hungry, and he was caught stealing food but spared his life and allowed to travel on? Maybe it was a group of humans who were freezing to death when another tribe came to their aid and showed compassion. It was most certainly the result of human observation of other humans who believed in something greater than self. It was most certainly NOT the result of some natural evolutionary attribute man just stumbled upon by chance, or defied all logic and reasoning to attempt for the first time, when every natural indicator and inclination would suggest failure.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Let' take a logical look at how Morality may have originated. Imagine two cave men wandering through the wilderness. One cave man (call him Ug) doesn't believe in anything spiritual, he is just an animal like all other animals, trying to survive and propagate. The other cave man (call him Og) is a member of a tribe who, for whatever reasons, worships the sun as a God, it is the giver and taker of everything he knows and understands, and he and his tribe have adapted numerous customs and rituals to pay their respects to this power. During their hunting, and unaware of each other, Og mistakingly wounds Ug! At first, Ug doesn't know what to think, is he about to die? Will this other human kill him off now? He would certainly do so, because that is how it works in nature, animals have no natural inclination to be compassionate. But Og, knowing and understanding that his Sun God would be disappointed he had used his skills to harm another, goes to the aid of Ug and brings him back to his camp, where the entire tribe nurses him back to health. Ug goes on his way, but when he returns to his tribe, he has an amazing story of how he barely escaped death, and how this other human didn't behave in the typical natural way he had expected. Ug's tribe thinks this was very nice, and decides they will adopt the same way with others. Through these examples, more people are exposed to it and observe it, and the idea catches on, pretty soon, you have mankind practicing morality and thriving.

Og may have been helpful, not from worshipping the sun god, but just from his ability to feel empathy, for a person who is wounded and not acting aggressively. There is no need for a sun god.

Now, maybe the story doesn't involve a wounded hunter, maybe it is some poor soul who was hungry, and he was caught stealing food but spared his life and allowed to travel on? Maybe it was a group of humans who were freezing to death when another tribe came to their aid and showed compassion. It was most certainly the result of human observation of other humans who believed in something greater than self. It was most certainly NOT the result of some natural evolutionary attribute man just stumbled upon by chance, or defied all logic and reasoning to attempt for the first time, when every natural indicator and inclination would suggest failure.

The empathy we feel for members or our tribe can be generalized to foreigners when similiarites are notices. There is still no need for a sun god.
that's just a glaringly aritificial stipulation you have created to assist your idioti argument.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Og may have been helpful, not from worshipping the sun god, but just from his ability to feel empathy, for a person who is wounded and not acting aggressively. There is no need for a sun god.

Why would he feel empathy toward a competing human animal? Nowhere else in nature, does this occur, in fact, a wounded animal is most vulnerable to predators. The only way empathy could have happened, is through compassion and respect for human life, which was probably the result of some spiritual belief. Maybe it wasn't a Sun God, maybe it was the Rain God, or the Wind God, or maybe it was just a profound sense of something greater and more powerful, which compelled Og to help another in distress? There simply is no 'natural' reason for him to do this.

The empathy we feel for members or our tribe can be generalized to foreigners when similiarites are notices. There is still no need for a sun god.
that's just a glaringly aritificial stipulation you have created to assist your idioti argument.

Nothing idiotic about it at all, you just have a hard time accepting that Morality was originally the result of spirituality, and the faith and trust it established. You are frustrated that you can't prove your argument and it doesn't make sense from a philosophical or scientific standpoint.

Empathy and Compassion are the result of Morality, how could they have existed before Morality? This is where your theory fails, you can't understand that the conditions to enable Morality, Empathy, Compassion, etc., all had to be preceded with faith and trust. The only other possible way it could have arrived, is through a God bestowing the rationalization into mans brain. Nature does not support your concept, it defies Darwin's principles, as well as common sense, if you bother to think about it.

Your problem is, you don't want to think about it. You have made your mind up about it, and despite being shown how wrong you are, despite not having any sort of scientific evidence to support your opinion, you are going to continue to insist you are right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Maybe you think this is some kind of game, where the last person to post to the thread wins or something, because you aren't adding any information, your past dozen posts have essentially been the same stubborn insistence you are right and I am a moron. I personally don't have time for you anymore. If you can't respond with some tangible information pertaining to the topic, I am outta here, and you can go on beating your chest and claiming to have won something. Have fun!

 

[uscitizen]

Groups that practice morality for the benefit of all individuals, are commonly referred to as Religious Organizations.
//

don't you mean socialist ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Groups that practice morality for the benefit of all individuals, are commonly referred to as Religious Organizations.
//

don't you mean socialist ?

No. I was pointing out that AHZ's definition of group morality, where groups practice morality for the benefit of all, is most commonly called Organized Religion. Socialism is a form of government where the state provides all needs of the people, who rely on the government to tell them what is moral. Two completely different things, but thanks for your interest.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No. I was pointing out that AHZ's definition of group morality, where groups practice morality for the benefit of all, is most commonly called Organized Religion. Socialism is a form of government where the state provides all needs of the people, who rely on the government to tell them what is moral. Two completely different things, but thanks for your interest.

Yet most organized religions do not pass my test.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Why would he feel empathy toward a competing human animal?

If he feels pity or is in some other way touched. It makes more sense than your sun god nonsense.

Nowhere else in nature, does this occur,

It occurs in man. We are part of nature.

in fact, a wounded animal is most vulnerable to predators. The only way empathy could have happened, is through compassion and respect for human life, which was probably the result of some spiritual belief.

Probably not. Most likely it's based on an experience where helpful behavior produced a new ally in the world.

Maybe it wasn't a Sun God, maybe it was the Rain God, or the Wind God, or maybe it was just a profound sense of something greater and more powerful, which compelled Og to help another in distress? There simply is no 'natural' reason for him to do this.

Yes. Like an experience where helpful behavior in the past produced a new ally in the world.

Nothing idiotic about it at all, you just have a hard time accepting that Morality was originally the result of spirituality, and the faith and trust it established. You are frustrated that you can't prove your argument and it doesn't make sense from a philosophical or scientific standpoint.

You're idiotic. And Im not frustrated. I'm enjoying fisting you.

Empathy and Compassion are the result of Morality, how could they have existed before Morality?

Perhaps through noticing how helpful behavior creates stronger bonds and better allies in the world.

This is where your theory fails, you can't understand that the conditions to enable Morality, Empathy, Compassion, etc., all had to be preceded with faith and trust.

My theory doesn't fail. Oftentimes trust is earned. When youngsters witness parents exhibiting cooperative behaviors, they will tend to repeat those, until those behaviors cease to serve them well.

The only other possible way it could have arrived, is through a God bestowing the rationalization into mans brain.

LOL. You're so deranged and stupid.

Nature does not support your concept, it defies Darwin's principles, as well as common sense, if you bother to think about it.

Nature does support my concept. Obviously. Man's doing it and we're part of nature.

Your problem is, you don't want to think about it.

I've thought about it long and hard.

You have made your mind up about it, and despite being shown how wrong you are,

You haven't shown me to be wrong.

despite not having any sort of scientific evidence to support your opinion, you are going to continue to insist you are right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

My explanation makes more sense than your "god" ridiculousness.

Maybe you think this is some kind of game, where the last person to post to the thread wins or something, because you aren't adding any information, your past dozen posts have essentially been the same stubborn insistence you are right and I am a moron.

Maybe you think this is some kind of game, where the last person to post to the thread wins or something, because you aren't adding any information, your past dozen posts have essentially been the same stubborn insistence you are right and I am a moron.

I personally don't have time for you anymore. If you can't respond with some tangible information pertaining to the topic, I am outta here, and you can go on beating your chest and claiming to have won something. Have fun!

Ok. We'll see. I bet you come back for more, because you love it so much.

Morality is a way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. Spirituality and Religion are not prerequisites.

 

[uscitizen]

No. I was pointing out that AHZ's definition of group morality, where groups practice morality for the benefit of all, is most commonly called Organized Religion. Socialism is a form of government where the state provides all needs of the people, who rely on the government to tell them what is moral. Two completely different things, but thanks for your interest.

religion does not practice morality for the good of all, just for their religion.
Example it is fine to kill those of an opposing religion.
It was even ordered by God, to kill all who did not flee before them. women and children included.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

religion does not practice morality for the good of all, just for their religion.
Example it is fine to kill those of an opposing religion.
It was even ordered by God, to kill all who did not flee before them. women and children included.

Let me make this fucking clear, for the last time... I am not endorsing, condoning, supporting, advocating, agreeing with, or otherwise arguing "for" religious morality! I am merely making a factual statement about what orgainized religion does. The statement was made, that man found it beneficial to mutually cooperate for the benefit of all mankind, and I pointed out that this is the basis for any and all organized religion. It doesn't matter if YOU think their actions are moral or whether they benefit all men, that was not the question.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Let me make this fucking clear, for the last time... I am not endorsing, condoning, supporting, advocating, agreeing with, or otherwise arguing "for" religious morality!

Yes you are, you retarded dipshit.

I am merely making a factual statement about what orgainized religion does. The statement was made, that man found it beneficial to mutually cooperate for the benefit of all mankind, and I pointed out that this is the basis for any and all organized religion. It doesn't matter if YOU think their actions are moral or whether they benefit all men, that was not the question.

And you were rebutted. Most religions organize for war against nonbelievers, that's not moral.

 

[uscitizen]

Let me make this fucking clear, for the last time... I am not endorsing, condoning, supporting, advocating, agreeing with, or otherwise arguing "for" religious morality! I am merely making a factual statement about what orgainized religion does. The statement was made, that man found it beneficial to mutually cooperate for the benefit of all mankind, and I pointed out that this is the basis for any and all organized religion. It doesn't matter if YOU think their actions are moral or whether they benefit all men, that was not the question.

but you said religious morals were to benefit ALL. sheesh.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If he feels pity or is in some other way touched. It makes more sense than your sun god nonsense.

It occurs in man. We are part of nature.

Probably not. Most likely it's based on an experience where helpful behavior produced a new ally in the world.

Yes. Like an experience where helpful behavior in the past produced a new ally in the world.

You're idiotic. And Im not frustrated. I'm enjoying fisting you.

Perhaps through noticing how helpful behavior creates stronger bonds and better allies in the world.

My theory doesn't fail. Oftentimes trust is earned. When youngsters witness parents exhibiting cooperative behaviors, they will tend to repeat those, until those behaviors cease to serve them well.

LOL. You're so deranged and stupid.

Nature does support my concept. Obviously. Man's doing it and we're part of nature.

I've thought about it long and hard.

You haven't shown me to be wrong.

My explanation makes more sense than your "god" ridiculousness.

Maybe you think this is some kind of game, where the last person to post to the thread wins or something, because you aren't adding any information, your past dozen posts have essentially been the same stubborn insistence you are right and I am a moron.



Ok. We'll see. I bet you come back for more, because you love it so much.

Morality is a way of behaving that facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. Spirituality and Religion are not prerequisites.

You are stupid. You don't seem to understand, the "experiences" you keep mentioning, did not just magically take place on a whim one day! This also defies Darwin's theory and nature in general. Unless you believe that God enabled these first original experiences, which lead to man's understanding of morality and why it was important, you haven't provided an explanation for how it emerged.

You keep attributing Morality to things that came AFTER morality! Compassion, understanding, empathy, helpful behavior, cooperative relationships... ALL were the products of Morality! It preceded these things, which means they didn't happen first! Before Morality, there had to be Faith and Trust, because there is no other way to rationally explain how Morality got here, unless God just gave it to us! Now you can keep dancing around on a head of a pin, pretending you are Muhammad Ali, but you haven't shown us anything to support your baseless view of how Morality came to be without the prerequisite of faith and trust.

You want to keep on angrily throwing "your sun god" up, but it wasn't MY sun god, I don't believe in a sun god! I have already said, maybe it wasn't a sun god at all, maybe it was the rain god or the wind god, or maybe it was the general sense we are all born with, that something is greater than ourselves? I know you don't think you were born with this general sense, but you were, we all were. Your incessant lashing out against this belief is proof that you do indeed believe, you are just in denial. Your denial of this is so strong, you are unable to think objectively, and you continue to pose ridiculous arguments which defy nature and the theories of Darwin himself! I've shown you this, I've explained how it is impossible for Morality to have emerged without the presence of faith and trust, but you just want to insist you know better than me, and I am an idiot.

You've not explained it or made a case for how it came about, and the fact is, you can't! Everything you try to point to, leads us right back to my original point, it originally required some faith and trust in something. There is no rational, natural, or scientific way to explain it otherwise, unless you believe God just bestowed this understanding upon man. I suppose that is possible, but you are supposed to be an Atheist, and I don't think that is the argument you intended.

In your warped mind, you want to believe Morality has nothing to do with spiritual belief. You try to construct a secular definition of morality and it is the same definition we use for the behavior of wolves and street gangs. Then you attempt to wiggle out of that statement by adding to the definition, and suddenly, your definition is what we use to describe organized religion! Meanwhile, you continue to rationalize how morality came to be by pointing to the results of morality.

Man did not just stumble out of the primordial soup with this profound wisdom and understanding of morality. In order for it to have taken place the first time, man had to trust and have faith, otherwise, it defies nature. You want to use terms like "they realized" but realization requires rationalization, and how could they rationalize something that defied the laws of nature? Human morality is confined to ONE species on the planet, and it is not the product of nature. It clearly doesn't meet the standards set by Darwin for evolutionary acquisition. It is a human behavior, found only in humans, curiously enough, so is spirituality! Go fuckin figure? This is not a coincidence.