BW. Noted
I apologise if I wrongly saw your current picking at me the sole result of your frustration from your altercation with huggy, which you seen to blame me for by misplaced association.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If you believe that Yahweh is moral just because he says he is, that's just argument from authority.

True. The one case that an argument from authority would not be fallacious is if the authority appealed to is the ultimate authority. The reason an appeal to authority is normally fallacious is because men are fallible. An infallible authority wouldn't be.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The bible can't be used as evidence of anything anyway. The bible doesn't even prove that Egypt existed, much less Yahweh.

If the Bible isn't the source of morality for you, then what is?

(March 4, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: Secular humanism is probably the best example of objective morality that we have right now, so if you want a standard of morality by which to judge the purported actions of your god, I suggest you start there.

Could you develop "objective morality"? I'm getting different definitions from different sources. Are these: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1975), A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities (1976), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), the most recent and accurate viewpoints on secular humanism?

(March 4, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Jesus claimed that a person should forgive another person 7 times 70. The God character hardly forgave anyone even one time.

Except when He bore our sins and iniquities on the cross and now we have forgiveness and recociliation with God. He forgives us once and for all sins.

(March 5, 2014 at 4:47 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Or, Christianity reinforces the truth of Buddhism, since the latter predates the former by 500 years.

Chronological order is not necessarily a validation of truth, or proof that one derived from the other.

(March 5, 2014 at 9:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: You fucking asked for an evolutionary reason why killing would be immoral, and I gave you one. Just because it doesn't conform to your airy, magic version of morality and instead applies to real things happening in the real world, doesn't mean it's amoral.
Besides, in your worldview, are god's moral pronouncements nothing more than his opinions, detached from reality, or do they serve some purpose for the people that are supposed to obey them? If it's the former, why should anyone care about them? If it's the latter, then those real effects can be determined with or without a god.

The two commandments Christians are given in the New Testament are to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands are routed in reality and serve both a purpose for those who obey them and for those afffected. If God's morality determines ours, then the effects could only be determined if he exists. If He didn't exist then the real effects could not be felt because morality would not exist. This is why I asked: where does the evolutionist get his/her standard of morality from? The Biblical theist says that morality comes from God "writing his law in our hearts and minds" and that is realized through our conscience. He is the author of our morality. Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: The two commandments Christians are given in the New Testament are to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands are routed in reality and serve both a purpose for those who obey them and for those afffected.

There's some stuff wrong with what you just said, but I'll ignore it in favor of just completing my point: since you've just said that these moral commandments have effects in reality, and those effects must obviously be positive, then what use is god in commanding them? Surely one would be able to reason out the merit of those effects sans divine commandment, and implement them based solely on the fact that they are good for people in general?

Quote:If God's morality determines ours, then the effects could only be determined if he exists.

But you just said that god's morality doesn't determine ours, but that reality does, and that god's commandments are based on the positive effects they would have in reality.

You're not going to be able to play both sides of this game, so I'll ask you again, just to be sure: are god's commandments moral because god says them, or are they moral because of an underlying effect in reality that god has simply taken notice of and used to good effect in his commandments?

Quote: If He didn't exist then the real effects could not be felt because morality would not exist.

Except by those standards you wouldn't have morality at all, just a set of fiat declarations. If your moral standard is "whatever god commands," then you have no morality, because under that standard god could command genocide and you'd be bound to accept it as moral.

Quote:This is why I asked: where does the evolutionist get his/her standard of morality from?

Reality, as I've mentioned numerous times before. We can measure the objective effects of actions and determine their moral worth based upon their positive or negative effects on living things and the environment. Which is what you agreed to in your first statement, before you contradicted yourself.

Quote: The Biblical theist says that morality comes from God "writing his law in our hearts and minds" and that is realized through our conscience. He is the author of our morality.

Right, and is that morality based only on what god says, or is there some demonstrable positive effect of those moral commandments in the real world?

Quote:Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

Nobody is saying natural selection is the author of morality, so you're wrong to begin with, but also, your assumption that morality has to come from some physical entity is entirely unfounded. Assertions seem to be all you have, and you've contradicted yourself at least twice in your response to me.

Quote:The two commandments Christians are given in the New Testament are to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands are routed in reality and serve both a purpose for those who obey them and for those afffected. If God's morality determines ours, then the effects could only be determined if he exists. If He didn't exist then the real effects could not be felt because morality would not exist. This is why I asked: where does the evolutionist get his/her standard of morality from? The Biblical theist says that morality comes from God "writing his law in our hearts and minds" and that is realized through our conscience. He is the author of our morality. Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

With regard to the first commandment that has nothing to do with morality - its just ensuring enslavement.

With regard to the second its not original and the choice of the word neighbour, as opposed to fellow human being, for example, is poor.

So where does morality come from?

Simple. Natural selection for an intelligent social species equips us with a decent set of tools in order to develop morality within a social context. Note - it doesn't pre-equip us with morality as such, just the tools to develop it.

In essence the set of empathy, reciprocation and fairness give us everything we need to develop complex social rules.

The result is that some rules are common across all societies (on murder, for example or property ownership) whilst others (treatment of women, homosexuals, minorities etc.) vary dramatically.

That variation is fully supported within a framework based on fundamental underlying tools. Its what allows society to adjust its rules continuously - which is exactly what we see today.

Not 50 years ago in the UK homosexuality was illegal, now they can marry. This sort of change is fully supportable on the above basis. The idea of a fixed set of morals is therefore useless and this is why we can eliminate God from the equation.

Biblical God had no problem with slavery but wanted homosexuals stoned. His punishment for a multiplicity of other "crimes" such as adultery and being cheeky to one's parents and a host of others was always the same - stoning.

God lacked the sense of punishment fitting the crime. He turned a woman to salt for turning to look at the fireworks, punished the whole of humanity for a couple eating a forbidden fruit, drowned the world when it pissed him off......

No - the bible is no guide to morality - other than how not to do it.

If you genuinely followed biblical principles as laid down in the bible you'd be imprisoned in a week.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

Even if those that say evolution is responsible for morality are committing reification, which they are not, you're simply replacing it with your own and trying to cover it up with the bare assertion that morality cannot exist without god.

(March 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm)Cinjin Wrote: othankgod. I thought I was the only one. I butchered a whore last Monday. It was a rough day and I knew it would make your god happy anyway.

I like my women like I like my coffee... ground up and in the freezer.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If you believe that Yahweh is moral just because he says he is, that's just argument from authority.

True. The one case that an argument from authority would not be fallacious is if the authority appealed to is the ultimate authority. The reason an appeal to authority is normally fallacious is because men are fallible. An infallible authority wouldn't be.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The bible can't be used as evidence of anything anyway. The bible doesn't even prove that Egypt existed, much less Yahweh.

If the Bible isn't the source of morality for you, then what is?

He seems pretty fallible to me. You need to prove that he exists, that he's good, that he's perfect, and that he really is all powerful before I start ignoring the things I don't like about him and worship him.

My morality comes from my life experience, and the people around me. I'm a nice person because I was raised that way, and want to be a good person. Not because I'm being bribed or threatened. I have done things that the bible doesn't approve of, and have not done things that the bible does approve of. I have never enslaved anyone, nor committed mass murder, nor raped anyone and married them afterwards, despite the bible saying it's ok in certain cases.

I have not turned myself in for murder or rape, despite those thoughts crossing my mind, because I don't believe that thinking something is the same as doing it. I also don't believe that an innocent should be killed to pay for the crimes of the guilty, whether the victims of said evil have any say in it or not. I also don't believe in eternal punishment for finite crimes.

My morality is quite different from the bible's, because I feel that the bible's morality is vastly outdated. So does the set of laws in the country I live in, despite some claims that Yahweh had any hand in them.

(March 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Even if those that say evolution is responsible for morality are committing reification, which they are not, you're simply replacing it with your own and trying to cover it up with the bare assertion that morality cannot exist without god.

Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification)
"In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas[2] are distanced from objects." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction)

An abstraction is produced from a thought process, an abstraction does not produce a thought process.

"When human-like qualities are attributed as well, it is a special case of reification,[dubious – discuss] known as pathetic fallacy (or anthropomorphic fallacy).
Ex: 'Nature provides empathy that we may have insight into the mind of others.'"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy))

Giving human traits (like rational thought processes) to processes like natural selection or speciation or a chemical equation is a fallacy of reification.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But you just said that god's morality doesn't determine ours, but that reality does, and that god's commandments are based on the positive effects they would have in reality.

You're not going to be able to play both sides of this game, so I'll ask you again, just to be sure: are god's commandments moral because god says them, or are they moral because of an underlying effect in reality that god has simply taken notice of and used to good effect in his commandments?

I'll answer by restating what I initially wrote: God gave us His commandments that have a positive effect in reality. You have my proposed cause and effect backwards here. You're proposing that God 'took notice of the good effect' and then produced the commandment. I'm proposing God made the commandment (the cause), and we observe the effect. You're asking me an either-or question that can be answered a third way.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Reality, as I've mentioned numerous times before. We can measure the objective effects of actions and determine their moral worth based upon their positive or negative effects on living things and the environment.

... since you've just said that these moral commandments have effects in reality, and those effects must obviously be positive, then what use is god in commanding them? Surely one would be able to reason out the merit of those effects sans divine commandment, and implement them based solely on the fact that they are good for people in general?

You take for granted that we can already 'reason right from wrong'. You would have to presuppose morality to be able to 'reason out the merit...' Presupposing morality as proof for morality is begging the question, your simply assuming the very thing you're trying to prove (we observe morality in reality, we can measure morality in reality, therefore reality gives us morality; it's circular). Where did we gain the knowledge that right exists and wrong exists and where did we get the knowledge to discern between the two?

(March 10, 2014 at 5:59 pm)Chad32 Wrote: My morality comes from my life experience, and the people around me. I'm a nice person because I was raised that way, and want to be a good person.

Can the origin of morality be other people? Viewed on a small scale, if I were to get my morality from you and you get your morality from Fred and Fred gets his from John and John gets his from me, then have we answered the question? It's somewhat circular. If things are passed from person to person we eventually run out of people. When explored this way there are two solutions: 1. Someone outside the human race gave it to the human race, or 2. Morality is ultimately determined by each individual person. If morality is ultimately determined by the individual then we would never have a valid reason to bring an accusation against anyone other than ourselves. Each of us would judge what is right in our own eyes.

(March 11, 2014 at 2:15 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I'll answer by restating what I initially wrote: God gave us His commandments that have a positive effect in reality. You have my proposed cause and effect backwards here. You're proposing that God 'took notice of the good effect' and then produced the commandment. I'm proposing God made the commandment (the cause), and we observe the effect. You're asking me an either-or question that can be answered a third way.

So, what you're saying is that god made a commandment and then arranged physical reality so that obeying that commandment results in a positive physical effect? So then there's no reason that one would need god for morality, since they could see the physical effects anyway.

Or you're saying that god made a commandment and therefore that commandment is good, and whatever effect that happens is also good, in which case you don't have morality, as I said earlier. You just have orders.

Quote:You take for granted that we can already 'reason right from wrong'. You would have to presuppose morality to be able to 'reason out the merit...'

You aren't listening, and more importantly, you're putting quotation marks around words that never even appeared in my post, hinting that you either don't know what quotations marks are for, or more likely, you have a script that you're following regardless of what is actually said to you.

What I said was that we can reason from the objective effects of an action, and this is a really trivial claim: if I shoot you in the leg for no reason, are you claiming that the only way we could figure out that this is a less than desirable outcome is by presupposing divine morality? Or could we simply observe that you are now in an unnecessary state of pain and injury, and that most likely you would prefer not to be, and work backwards from there?

See, you christians like to pretend that morality is some huge, complicated puzzle that you require outside help to solve, but it's actually very simple at base, so long as you actually think. One can look at the effects of actions and stimuli with regards to how thinking beings react to them, and work out a moral system based on those observations; after all, what use is morality if it doesn't concern the welfare of thinking beings?

Quote: Presupposing morality as proof for morality is begging the question, your simply assuming the very thing you're trying to prove (we observe morality in reality, we can measure morality in reality, therefore reality gives us morality; it's circular).

It's also not what I said.

Quote: Where did we gain the knowledge that right exists and wrong exists and where did we get the knowledge to discern between the two?

First question: we didn't because they aren't discrete entities. We label actions right and wrong.

Second question: by observing the effects of actions in reality- not the morality of them but the actual, physical effects- and determining the harm or benefit of those actions.

Which is what I said earlier, before you trundled along on your little apologetic script regardless.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

---

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If you believe that Yahweh is moral just because he says he is, that's just argument from authority.

True. The one case that an argument from authority would not be fallacious is if the authority appealed to is the ultimate authority. The reason an appeal to authority is normally fallacious is because men are fallible. An infallible authority wouldn't be.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The bible can't be used as evidence of anything anyway. The bible doesn't even prove that Egypt existed, much less Yahweh.

If the Bible isn't the source of morality for you, then what is?

(March 4, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: Secular humanism is probably the best example of objective morality that we have right now, so if you want a standard of morality by which to judge the purported actions of your god, I suggest you start there.

Could you develop "objective morality"? I'm getting different definitions from different sources. Are these: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1975), A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities (1976), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), the most recent and accurate viewpoints on secular humanism?

---

(March 4, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Jesus claimed that a person should forgive another person 7 times 70. The God character hardly forgave anyone even one time.

Except when He bore our sins and iniquities on the cross and now we have forgiveness and recociliation with God. He forgives us once and for all sins.

---

(March 5, 2014 at 4:47 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Or, Christianity reinforces the truth of Buddhism, since the latter predates the former by 500 years.

Chronological order is not necessarily a validation of truth, or proof that one derived from the other.

(March 5, 2014 at 9:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: You fucking asked for an evolutionary reason why killing would be immoral, and I gave you one. Just because it doesn't conform to your airy, magic version of morality and instead applies to real things happening in the real world, doesn't mean it's amoral.
Besides, in your worldview, are god's moral pronouncements nothing more than his opinions, detached from reality, or do they serve some purpose for the people that are supposed to obey them? If it's the former, why should anyone care about them? If it's the latter, then those real effects can be determined with or without a god.

The two commandments Christians are given in the New Testament are to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands are routed in reality and serve both a purpose for those who obey them and for those afffected. If God's morality determines ours, then the effects could only be determined if he exists. If He didn't exist then the real effects could not be felt because morality would not exist. This is why I asked: where does the evolutionist get his/her standard of morality from? The Biblical theist says that morality comes from God "writing his law in our hearts and minds" and that is realized through our conscience. He is the author of our morality. Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

---

So is it your understanding that people don't have to forgive others now because Jesus forgave everyone 2,000 years ago?