Darwin Fish out of water

[Losty]

Nice to meet you! Enjoy some welcome cookies
via Imgflip Meme Maker

[JuliaL]

I think you need to pick up a book on evolution. I have studied human behaviour and evolution to a great degree. If evolution hard wired morality into humans and not just the capabilities of survival (which our moral choices are based on according to you) why do think societies differ in right and wrong across, history, land, cultures, countries and time? Shouldn't they be the same? I challenge you to find me one gene that encodes some aspect of morality to such a degree that indicates innate morals. Atheists have no moral compass, it's all subjective to them. What is right to one person can be different for another. It's all subjective. Atheists are in no position to judge morality. I would go as far to say, that if I was an atheist I would be a hypocrite if I opposed the Rwanda genocide.

No surprise, but your views on (human) morality are determined by your (I presume) status as human. Moral codes across societies not in contact are not expected to be identical. They change over time and under environmental pressures. Still, you will find there are common taboos against murder, incest, theft which result in more stable, and therefore more likely to be observed, societies. Go google 'memetics' and 'memeplex.'
Try as hard as you can to consider morality which (as islamic you probably consider as objective, universal and absolute) from anothers perspective. In the following example case, please consider the perspective of the mother bear. She will kill you if you appear to be a threat to her cub. Is this wrong from your perspective? Probably. More importantly, is it wrong from the perspective of the she bear? Probably not.
May I preempt what I assume will be your defense that she is acting from instinct not morality. Such a claim is a bald assertion as you are not privy to her internal state.

[naturestubbs1]

I think you need to pick up a book on evolution. I have studied human behaviour and evolution to a great degree. If evolution hard wired morality into humans and not just the capabilities of survival (which our moral choices are based on according to you) why do think societies differ in right and wrong across, history, land, cultures, countries and time? Shouldn't they be the same? I challenge you to find me one gene that encodes some aspect of morality to such a degree that indicates innate morals. Atheists have no moral compass, it's all subjective to them. What is right to one person can be different for another. It's all subjective. Atheists are in no position to judge morality. I would go as far to say, that if I was an atheist I would be a hypocrite if I opposed the Rwanda genocide.

No surprise, but your views on (human) morality are determined by your (I presume) status as human. Moral codes across societies not in contact are not expected to be identical. They change over time and under environmental pressures. Still, you will find there are common taboos against murder, incest, theft which result in more stable, and therefore more likely to be observed, societies. Go google 'memetics' and 'memeplex.'
Try as hard as you can to consider morality which (as islamic you probably consider as objective, universal and absolute) from anothers perspective. In the following example case, please consider the perspective of the mother bear. She will kill you if you appear to be a threat to her cub. Is this wrong from your perspective? Probably. More importantly, is it wrong from the perspective of the she bear? Probably not.
May I preempt what I assume will be your defense that she is acting from instinct not morality. Such a claim is a bald assertion as you are not privy to her internal state.

First off I am not muslim, I am an atheist and have been since my earliest memories,,, Second, I happen to agree with most of what you say. Of course you can't tell the internal state of the bear. Using that line of logic you could say that there you also couldn't know the "internal state" of any other human than yourself. It doesn't really matter what the motives are or what label you want to put on it, you can't deny that the ACTION of the animal is to preserve her bloodline and indirectly the species. I think that morality (instinct whatever) is a combination of both nature and nurture. I have no evidence that instinct is hard wired, but with the completion of the human genome mapping project scientists are finding that the "junk DNA" previously thought to serve no purpose is actually integral to some human behavior. I think in the future it is inevitable that they will find some DNA sequences (or abandoned sequences) that contribute to instinct. I don't think that scientists could test if this is true because it would be impossible to limit the independent variables.

[naturestubbs1]

If it was legal and willingly entered into by all parties, sure, why not? If my (our) opinions on your domestic arrangements was necessary for them to attain equal status with already established marital conventions, I don't see any problems. I also don't see where the question of determining right and wrong fits in - could you clarify?

You say if it was legal, are you suggesting that your countries governance guides your morality? Let me take this a step further and suggest that if me and my sister wanted to have intercourse and be married, would you support this? Or would you think it wrong? We are both consenting and promise we will wear condoms to prevent a defective child. Incest in all Western countries is illegal.

I'm sorry... I think your judeo-christian bible already has a great precedent for incest. In Genesis 19:34-38 Lot's daughters have a nice discussion about how to seduce their father when they say "The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day." Obviously since the Bible condones even the most wretched acts of incest I can only assume that you would find it not only pleasurable but "godly" to have sex with your sister. Maybe you can stone her when you are done inseminating her or better yet, commit her to the bondage of slavery that god loves so much. You stated above that "incest in all western countries is illegal." Being a good christian would you assert that the bible usurps the laws of governance? Or does the bible condone something that would be illegal (or immoral) in any modern-day civilized society?

[pocaracas]

Welcome, welcome!

[pseudo-mod hat ]It seems people are very interested in this subject... but you may want to discuss it outside of the intro thread.[/hat]


Do enjoy the rest of the forum. That's where these discussions should be!

[LastPoet]

Have a swim in our shark filled pool. Watch out for the turds left by our religious members tough

[naturestubbs1]

Welcome, welcome!

[pseudo-mod hat ]It seems people are very interested in this subject... but you may want to discuss it outside of the intro thread.[/hat]


Do enjoy the rest of the forum. That's where these discussions should be!

Yes, I love this site... I am not quite sure of all of the forum protocol, but I do know that the hypocracy spouted off by people like the dude above is one of the reasons why I needed a place to vent. I know that this is all very contentious but don't try to frame a ridiculous argument without first "casting the first stone" at yourself.