The conclusion is always the best indication of what came before, and I am not impressed.

You have no idea what you're talking about as is evident. But then you're one of the most illogical atheists on here I'm often surprised you're not a theist so, lol. I don't expect to be impressed lol.

I like you, Hammy. I only want to help you realize that you're not as bad as you think you are.

(May 21, 2018 at 7:34 pm)Kit Wrote: I like you, Hammy.  I only want to help you realize that you're not as bad as you think you are.

I don't think I'm bad. I think I'm awesome. I think you're bad at logic.

It's kind of ironic that you say that how I behave online is different to in RL and you bet I am empathetic in RL and yet all your judgements of who I am as a person is entirely online. You have absolutely no evidence for what you "honestly believe". It's all bullshit. Not only is empathy not the same thing as compassion but often the more compassionate answer is the least empathetic one as empathy often leads people to make bad ethical decisions. As Paul Bloom explains.

As you'll probably never buy the book I'll give you a YouTube video that you may possibly perhaps watch:

hehe, hehe, hehe

(May 21, 2018 at 5:23 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If morality comes from evolution, why is morality only a human concept?

We don't know that it is.

---

(May 21, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Animals do not do not have any concept of right/wrong or good/evil or any system of justice (punishment for immoral behavior) for that matter, if you say they do then provide your source.

Ok, so now you show that your ignorance is willful...

You used Frans De Waal as a source on the same subject, and I thoroughly debunked the notion that he claimed animals we're moral beings in this post:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53848-p...pid1717332

From an article written by de Waal
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...thout-god/

Quote:At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

From an article written about de Waal
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/0...use-of-god

Quote:Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history. Since I have wearied of the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing, in which belief is equated with dim-wittedness, I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores to what extent God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature. The role of religion is secondary.

Just because he wouldn't say that they were a moral being doesn't mean that we can't look at the same evidence but conclude they are moral beings by simply defining morality differently.

(May 21, 2018 at 6:32 pm)Hammy Wrote: I always find it hilarious when many Christians think that without belief in God we'd all go out and kill and rape and steal... it's hilarious because it's concerning that the Christians in question don't seem to think there's any reason to avoid doing those things besides belief in God...... like fear of hell or hope for heaven is the only thing stopping them raping and stealing and killing.... which is just an admission that they're psychopathic and amoral....

Well theirs at least one atheist here who admitted that if it wasn't for prison or the death penalty, she'd happily go out and murder a few people... Ironically my quote speaks to the rest of your post.

If penalty for crime was a sufficient deterrent, then there shouldn't be anyone committing crimes, right?

(March 24, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Joods Wrote:

Huggy74 Wrote:Claiming people serve God because they are afraid of Hell is like saying people don't commit murder because they are afraid of the death penalty.

That depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about a loving god, one who keeps the peace, puts an end to suffering, sickness and starvation, then no, I suppose he shouldn't be feared. But if you are talking about the god of your bible, you know, the one who performed mass genocide, constantly threatens his "people" that in order to get to the pearly white gates, they must obey him, otherwise they suffer eternal damnation in hell. That's the one I'm talking about.

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

*emphasis mine*

---

(May 21, 2018 at 3:43 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 2:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That's called conditioning.

---

Again, provide your sources.

You do your own fricking research.  It is not hard to find once you put down your Bible.

Oh, so you're just talking out of your ass... I thought as much.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Well theirs at least one atheist here who admitted that if it wasn't for prison or the death penalty, she'd happily go out and murder a few people... Ironically my quote speaks to the rest of your post.

Atheists can be immoral too. People can be immoral. Both theists and atheists can be immoral.

I was saying that theists who think they need religion to stop themselves from raping or killing seem pretty damn psychopathic.

Quote:If penalty for crime was a sufficient deterrent, then there shouldn't be anyone committing crimes, right?

You're completely missing the point. It's not about deterring people. The fact that many theists would act immorally without the threat of hell because the police aren't enough to deter them just goes to show how psychopathic some theists are.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:22 pm)Hammy Wrote: Just because he wouldn't say that they were a moral being doesn't mean that we can't look at the same evidence but conclude they are moral beings by simply defining morality differently.

I'm sure your no credential having self can conclude anything you want... Why does anyone have to take you seriously though?

---

(May 21, 2018 at 8:46 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Well theirs at least one atheist here who admitted that if it wasn't for prison or the death penalty, she'd happily go out and murder a few people... Ironically my quote speaks to the rest of your post.

Atheists can be immoral too. People can be immoral. Both theists and atheists can be immoral.

I was saying that theists who think they need religion to stop themselves from raping or killing seem pretty damn psychopathic.

Quote:If penalty for crime was a sufficient deterrent, then there shouldn't be anyone committing crimes, right?

You're completely missing the point. It's not about deterring people. The fact that many theists would act immorally without the threat of hell because the police aren't enough to deter them just goes to show how psychopathic some theists are.

*emphasis mine*

Really?

Then how do you explain the behavior of certain religious priests?