I can defend my position, and will, but I'm not going to fall for the dodging.

It's hardly dodging when I thrice stated that I have no familiarity with the naturalist views on this, other than a bit about Alex Rosenberg's position. And it likewise isn't dodging to ask someone who has made the tacit admission (if not explicit) that their position solves a problem that mine cannot, and yet has not, can not, or refuses to do so.

(October 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm)Phea1Mike Wrote: I suppose the reason so many are confused about this has to do with our culture. We have collectively chosen to value, (religious and non-religious alike), competition, profit, and greed over cooperation, honor, and love, and it's turning our world into a cesspool.

Humans have evolved to be social, to be empathetic, to cooperate. We have to care about, and care for each other since we are all but helpless for the first several years of our lives. Some, "primitive" cultures figured this out and lived accordingly. A good example are the Native Americans who, when we first arrived, believed greed, (taking more than you need), was a form of mental illness!

Humans have also evolved to be competitive, selfish, profit-oriented and greedy - so why is it that being social and empathetic are called moral traits while others are called immoral?

(October 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: Humans have also evolved to be competitive, selfish, profit-oriented and greedy - so why is it that being social and empathetic are called moral traits while others are called immoral?

Because 'god' says what is 'moral' and what is not, and 'he' has the monopoly on morals. On another note, if 'god' kills, it's moral, but it's only moral for man to kill when god says so.

(October 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Because 'god' says what is 'moral' and what is not, and 'he' has the monopoly on morals. On another note, if 'god' kills, it's moral, but it's only moral for man to kill when god says so.

That's a nonsensical answer. God has nothing to do with morality.

(October 23, 2013 at 7:07 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Because 'god' says what is 'moral' and what is not, and 'he' has the monopoly on morals. On another note, if 'god' kills, it's moral, but it's only moral for man to kill when god says so.

That's a nonsensical answer. God has nothing to do with morality.

Didn't God himself create the Ten Commandments?

(October 23, 2013 at 7:08 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(October 23, 2013 at 7:07 pm)genkaus Wrote: That's a nonsensical answer. God has nothing to do with morality.

Didn't God himself create the Ten Commandments?

Did he now? You got any proof of that?

(October 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm)Phea1Mike Wrote: I suppose the reason so many are confused about this has to do with our culture. We have collectively chosen to value, (religious and non-religious alike), competition, profit, and greed over cooperation, honor, and love, and it's turning our world into a cesspool.

Humans have evolved to be social, to be empathetic, to cooperate. We have to care about, and care for each other since we are all but helpless for the first several years of our lives. Some, "primitive" cultures figured this out and lived accordingly. A good example are the Native Americans who, when we first arrived, believed greed, (taking more than you need), was a form of mental illness!

Humans have also evolved to be competitive, selfish, profit-oriented and greedy - so why is it that being social and empathetic are called moral traits while others are called immoral?

The reason I consider them to be immoral is it's becoming more and more obvious they will eventually destroy our species, if not our entire planet.

The great philosophers of the past didn't have to discuss the possibility of man destroying the entire planet, because it wasn't even a remote possibility. Today, it's a reality. Take your pick; nuclear annihilation, disease pandemic, global warming, over population, pollution... we not only have to think about and discuss these issues, we better come up with the correct answers.

I believe this to be a fact: A finite world, with finite resources cannot sustain infinite growth. This simple, easy to grasp truth has been ignored because, in the past, it was inconceivable. We are still ignoring it, as it is in direct conflict with our entire way of, "civilized" life. There is one thing I'm pretty sure of. Things cannot continue in the direction they're going. By the next century, things WILL be VERY different, whether we want it or not.

It is a proven fact that under certain, desperate conditions, a person will resort to cannibalism, (which is almost universally considered wrong), in order to survive. We've become, (figuratively), cannibals as a way of life for so long, we accept it as normal, as human nature. I, (perhaps naively), believe we can solve the problems that confront us. If we don't, then I hope we die off before we ruin the planet for all life on it. Oh, and I don't believe religion will play any part in this, except to be part of the problem.

(October 23, 2013 at 7:16 pm)Phea1Mike Wrote: The reason I consider them to be immoral is it's becoming more and more obvious they will eventually destroy our species, if not our entire planet.

Actually, our species has enhanced its survivability through those qualities. As for destroying the planet, as long as we find another one before, that should be fine.

 I necroposted ...dunno what to do to take it back other than delete it...