Why believe the bible?

[The Industrial Atheist]

A fair amount of people that identify as Christians really don't. Some are just cultural Christians. If you believe in a vague idea of god, what else are you going to call yourself in the US but a Christian, even if you don't know anything about the bible or care about it?

[Huggy Bear]

Uh no...

The claim YOU made was that animals have a sense of morality, and you referenced Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings. The fact that you would reject an experts conclusion of his own research (that YOU referenced), when it contradicts your point speaks volumes.

Yes. Because I am also a qualified scientist that has researched the functional role of emotions. That's how science works.

My point still stands though, which you seem unable to grasp. I disagreed with Frans De Waal's claim, not his evidence. This is possible to do in science because the two are specified as such. This is not the case with the Bible or with xtians who do not understand the difference. This is why they end up using circular logic.

De Waals CLAIM is ths ANIMALS AREN'T MORAL BEINGS, Got it? You referenced De Waal's research as supporting YOUR CLAIM that animals can be moral, but De Waal's own words state otherwise.

Therefore the claim that animals are moral beings aren't supported by De Waal's research, HIS OWN acknowledgement, leaving no evidence to support said claim.

Since you claim to be a peer of De Waal, then review his work and publish your own article, that's how science works correct?

---

Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings.

LOL then how would he call animals? Immoral?

De Waal's own words from a New York Times article.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...thout-god/

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.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If you believe the Bible what are you believing?

[Fake Messiah]

De Waal's own words from a New York Times article.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...thout-god/

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.

That doesn't mean that he thinks chimps don't have any morals. It is like saying that chimps don't have a language, but it doesn't mean that they can't communicate. Because human language is so more complex that chimp's language fades in comparison. Indeed in the video I posted he claims animals have compassion and love and altruism which he calls pillars of morality.

As he writes from the article you cite:

For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today.

[I_am_not_mafia]

De Waals CLAIM is ths ANIMALS AREN'T MORAL BEINGS, Got it? You referenced De Waal's research as supporting YOUR CLAIM that animals can be moral, but De Waal's own words state otherwise.

Exactly. I referenced his evidence, not his claim. His research is the evidence. How he interprets that evidence is his claim. This allows other scientists to evaluate both individually. Papers contain both evidence and claims but it is clear which is which and papers also references evidence from other scientists. This is how science works.

A typical scientific paper will have the following structure

• Abstract - A summary of what the paper is about
  
• Introduction - Gives a theoretical grounding of the paper and references other papers in the literature as evidence
  
• The experiment - So that it can be reproduced by others and the readers can evaluate whether the experiment is meaningful or whether there are flaws
  
• Results - This is the evidence.
  
• Discussion or conclusion - This is the claim based on the interpretation of the evidence
  

Honestly the other xtians must be shaking their head wishing you'd shut up.

On a thread discussing how the Bible cannot be both the claim and the evidence, you come in and demonstrate for everyone to see the perfect example of how a xtian just cannot tell the difference. How many times have I tried to explain this to you?

The claim cannot also be the evidence otherwise you end up with circular logic.

I'm beginning to think that xtians truly see both as being the same thing, what with your inability to grasp this simple point and Stevell's blusterings that end up saying exactly what I was but as if it counteracted what I was saying. No wonder xtians just don't understand science.

[Huggy Bear]

De Waals CLAIM is ths ANIMALS AREN'T MORAL BEINGS, Got it? You referenced De Waal's research as supporting YOUR CLAIM that animals can be moral, but De Waal's own words state otherwise.

Exactly. I referenced his evidence, not his claim. His research is the evidence. How he interprets that evidence is his claim. This allows other scientists to evaluate both individually. Papers contain both evidence and claims but it is clear which is which and papers also references evidence from other scientists. This is how science works.

A typical scientific paper will have the following structure

• Abstract - A summary of what the paper is about
  
• Introduction - Gives a theoretical grounding of the paper and references other papers in the literature as evidence
  
• The experiment - So that it can be reproduced by others and the readers can evaluate whether the experiment is meaningful or whether there are flaws
  
• Results - This is the evidence.
  
• Discussion or conclusion - This is the claim based on the interpretation of the evidence
  

Honestly the other xtians must be shaking their head wishing you'd shut up.

On a thread discussing how the Bible cannot be both the claim and the evidence, you come in and demonstrate for everyone to see the perfect example of how a xtian just cannot tell the difference. How many times have I tried to explain this to you?

The claim cannot also be the evidence otherwise you end up with circular logic.

I'm beginning to think that xtians truly see both as being the same thing, what with your inability to grasp this simple point and Stevell's blusterings that end up saying exactly what I was but as if it counteracted what I was saying. No wonder xtians just don't understand science.

Before I address this post, point me to the part of De Waals research where you're able to conclude that animals have a sense of morality.

[Fake Messiah]

point me to the part of De Waals research where you're able to conclude that animals have a sense of morality.

So if animals are so devoid of morality why don't the just kill eachother? Like these guys?

Why don't they rip eachother apart?


Or why doesn't big gorilla on this photo simply blunder to death two smaller gorillas considering that it, according to you, doesn't have any sense of morality?


Or maybe it's simply every-bodies common sense from observation that animals have sense of morality?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Can anyone list 5 biblical characters who had good morals?

[Huggy Bear]

point me to the part of De Waals research where you're able to conclude that animals have a sense of morality.

So if animals are so devoid of morality why don't the just kill eachother? Like these guys?

---

---

Why don't they rip eachother apart?

These Adorable Squirrels Are Also Baby-Killing Cannibals

In a study published this week in The Scientific Naturalist, researchers report that North American red squirrel pups often fall victim to attacks from nearby males. Sometimes these murderous males also eat the youngsters they kill.

Or why doesn't big gorilla on this photo simply blunder to death two smaller gorillas considering that it, according to you, doesn't have any sense of morality?

---

---

Or maybe it's simply every-bodies common sense from observation that animals have sense of morality?

http://www.berggorilla.org/en/gorillas/g...-children/

On the other hand, silverbacks have been observed to deliberately kill babies - especially in mountain gorillas. Usually this is the case after a female transferred to another male together with her baby or if a new leading male takes over. This behaviour, called infanticide, is interpreted as a means to shorten the time until the baby's mother becomes fertile again and the new male can sire his own offspring with her.

[Fake Messiah]

http://www.berggorilla.org/en/gorillas/g...-children/

On the other hand, silverbacks have been observed to deliberately kill babies - especially in mountain gorillas. Usually this is the case after a female transferred to another male together with her baby or if a new leading male takes over. This behaviour, called infanticide, is interpreted as a means to shorten the time until the baby's mother becomes fertile again and the new male can sire his own offspring with her.

In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible. In India female infanticide is more common than the killing of male offspring, due to sex-selective infanticide. In China for example, the sex gap between males and females aged 0–19 years old was estimated to be 25 million in 2010 by the United Nations Population Fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

So then according to your logic human beings also don't have any moral values because they also sometimes kill their infants. Not to mention your god that you worship so dearly:
you will eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your own sons and daughters Deuteronomy 28:53

Their infants will be dashed in pieces  Isaiah 13:11–18

slay both man and woman, infant and suckling 1 Samuel 15:2–3

smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings 1 Samuel 22:19

their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16