(September 4, 2012 at 11:23 pm)Godschild Wrote: You have not answered the question only danced around it.

What question?

(September 5, 2012 at 3:22 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Why should LYING be wrong if we are just a result of random mutations that just happened to convey some sort of survival value?

1. Are you trying to equivocate between the meanings of the word "wrong"? I said, you are wrong as in "your statements don't reflect the reality" and not as in "your statements are immoral". Thus, lying is the same as making a wrong statement - it is wrong by definition. No one is attaching a specific moral judgment to it though.

2. Again we are not "just a result of random mutations that just happened to convey some sort of survival value". What would it take to get that through your thick skull.

3. As to why your lies make you immoral here - that's because in a rational debate, both parties have an implicit contract to stick to the truth. Since this is another version of the social contract that determines morality, you, in acting against it, are immoral.

(September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Evolution can't prescribe how we ought to behave since it's descriptive.

Whoever said it did?

either way your upset because of a misrepresentation, lie or false statment. You don't have any authority to tell anyone that they have to share the truth. That's where your logic takes us. Genkausaidit doesn't mean anything. Your morality is arbitrary whether you assert it or a group of people. By assuming immorality you assume morality and a standard to judge the difference.

You have no standard to judge any of this by.

BTW tell me in a few words what you think you originated from so I can get it through my thick skull.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: either way your upset because of a misrepresentation, lie or false statment.

So at the very least we can establish that you made such statements.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: You don't have any authority to tell anyone that they have to share the truth.

Why not?

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: That's where your logic takes us. Genkausaidit doesn't mean anything.

No one ever said it did.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Your morality is arbitrary whether you assert it or a group of people.

Prove it. Refute the rationale behind it.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: By assuming immorality you assume morality and a standard to judge the difference.

You have no standard to judge any of this by.

Says who? I most certainly do have such a standard.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: BTW tell me in a few words what you think you originated from so I can get it through my thick skull.

I originated from my parents. Your skull must be really thick if you felt the need to ask that.

(September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm)elunico13 Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 2:55 am)whateverist Wrote: Haven't you noticed? Nothing does prevent the next person from asserting the exact opposite. Not secular humanism, not the bible and certainly not your god. We are never on sure moral ground interpersonally. You have to check it out. Look for agreement but note divergences.

I no more find my own moral feelings diminished by this than I feel my hetero marriage under-mined by homosexual marriage. Some things aren't up to me and they aren't up to you either. I only wish more theists would understand this point. A little moral humility isn't a bad thing.

Serial killers excert the exact opposite.
I guess you're fine with pedofilia too. Don't wanna be intolerant, right? lol

Don't respond with your first emotional/knee jerk reaction. Think things through. After all you're in the philosophical thread. That goes for your politics too.

Gee, thanks for the advice but where do you get the idea that I advocate tolerance toward asocial behavior? Recognizing that serial killers operate with a different moral sense than most of us is no impediment to my way of thinking. Of course they do and I have no problem with exercising the force of law to prevent them from preying on the rest of us.

Looking back, I see nothing that would indicate I was speaking from emotion. Do you actually have a grasp on what is appropriate for a philosophy thread yourself? I took my degree in philosophy at university so I feel no compunction to express myself in a pretentious manner. Here's a pro tip for you: try harder to grasp and respond to what was actually said.

---

(September 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm)whateverist Wrote: Gee, thanks for the advice but where do you get the idea that I advocate tolerance toward asocial behavior? Recognizing that serial killers operate with a different moral sense than most of us is no impediment to my way of thinking. Of course they do and I have no problem with exercising the force of law to prevent them from preying on the rest of us.

Looking back, I see nothing that would indicate I was speaking from emotion. Do you actually have a grasp on what is appropriate for a philosophy thread yourself? I took my degree in philosophy at university so I feel no compunction to express myself in a pretentious manner. Here's a pro tip for you: try harder to grasp and respond to what was actually said.

If you took philosophy and didn't see any flaws with an atheist view accounting for morality than what were you doing? Did the professors convince you?

---

(September 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: either way your upset because of a misrepresentation, lie or false statment.

So at the very least we can establish that you made such statements.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: You don't have any authority to tell anyone that they have to share the truth.

Why not?

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: That's where your logic takes us. Genkausaidit doesn't mean anything.

No one ever said it did.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Your morality is arbitrary whether you assert it or a group of people.

Prove it. Refute the rationale behind it.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: By assuming immorality you assume morality and a standard to judge the difference.

You have no standard to judge any of this by.

Says who? I most certainly do have such a standard.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm)elunico13 Wrote: BTW tell me in a few words what you think you originated from so I can get it through my thick skull.

I originated from my parents. Your skull must be really thick if you felt the need to ask that.

Actually some "scientists" in the areas of historical science think life came from non life.

If thats the case then why does any mutation called "human" have any authority to impose morality on others. How can this blind faith account for morality? It can't.

Is there anyone in this thread that can help Genkaus out?

THE most superior form of morality is that which enables one to lead the life one wishes, with a clear conscience.


Going by the way Christians have behaved throughout history,one can only assume Judeo-Christian morality is perfectly designed for such an endeavor.

Quote:Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not incompatible with a life of sin (Ambrose Bierce)

(September 5, 2012 at 4:37 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 11:23 pm)Godschild Wrote: You have not answered the question only danced around it.

What question?

Go back and listen to the music.

(September 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Actually some "scientists" in the areas of historical science think life came from non life.

If thats the case then why does any mutation called "human" have any authority to impose morality on others. How can this blind faith account for morality? It can't.

Is there anyone in this thread that can help Genkaus out?

I wouldn't mind some assistance in understanding this oft repeated non-sequitur (and appeal to consequences, to boot) by Christians that "not consciously created" = "life is meaningless and there is no basis for any kind of morality".

While you're at it, explain to me how if we were consciously created that this god can do with us as it wills, make up any set of rules and magically these whims are transmuted into "objective standards"

How does one conclusion follow at all from the other assumption. If it turned out that we are a fortunate by product of the universe, how does that make us any less conscious, any less able to think or feel, and therefore any less worthy of compassion from our fellow conscious beings?

If, on the other hand, we were created by a god, how is that god's opinions and evaluations any less subjective than those of any other beings. Christians like to sneak in "outsider" into the definition of objectivity despite the fact that (1) a personal god who desires our constant adoration and affections is hardly a passionless outside observer and (2) even if this were so, the term "outsider" appears in no definition of "objective" that I'm aware of. Additionally, how, just by creating us, can that god be absolved from any moral responsibility. We certainly don't treat human parents this way, and paternity is often used as a metaphor by Christians to describe our relationship with an alleged celestial father.

And while I'm asking Christians to explain their reasoning, let's talk about that appeal to consequences (also known as "wishful thinking") that often seems to crop up in their rhetoric when morality is discussed. This whine that "if we're just a bunch of chemicals (or goo or whatever their latest inflammatory-yet-meaningless strawman metaphor for abiogenesis may be) then we have no basis for morality" smacks of the fallacious reasoning "I don't want to believe this because I think that would be bad and therefore I'm going to think it's not true". Well, get a grip you whiner. Reality doesn't care what you wish to be true. Reality simply is whatever it is and, as a grown up, you need to face it on those terms instead of what you wish were true.

So what if it turned out there is no such thing as a soul and I am just the by-product of my cranial activity? In the here-and-now I am still a conscious, self-aware being. I think. I feel. And if you prick me, I bleed. I'm not an object and my own compassion leads me to not treat any of my fellow human beings as such. This is why those of us who don't believe in a personal celestial father somehow get through life just fine and still manage to relate to one another in a healthy and compassionate manner, thank you very much.

(September 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Actually some "scientists" in the areas of historical science think life came from non life.

And its likely it did.

(September 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm)elunico13 Wrote: If thats the case then why does any mutation called "human" have any authority to impose morality on others.

They don't. That's the whole point of secular moraliity.

(September 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm)elunico13 Wrote: How can this blind faith account for morality? It can't.

And that's exactly why we reject your god-based morality. Because its based on blind faith.

---

(September 6, 2012 at 2:43 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 5, 2012 at 4:37 am)genkaus Wrote: What question?

Go back and listen to the music.

What music?

What other sort of morality is there?
If there is a 'universal morality' why doesn't everybody have it?
All I can see are a lot of moral codes which differer according to place and time.