(March 17, 2014 at 2:21 pm)heathendegenerate Wrote: you're searching for proof in evolution? look beyond that stupid fucking book... where every promise is a blatant lie.. where nothing adds up, unless you follow delusional pastors on youtube..then its right. and that sounds like the genocidal maniac in the old testament.. Man:"they called me balded and i'm freshly repented." God: "To hell with them! I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!"Yes I am searching for proof of morality in an evolutionary worldview.
(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Yes. Or empathy: like the example above your post, there's an assumption that there's "no way to know" inflicting pain on another person is wrong. This goes against The Golden Rule, and I can just picture a Christian torturing a non-believ--OH WAIT, that already happened in the Inquisition! I guess God should have told them torture was wrong.Yes you are correct, the inquisition was in opposition to the 'golden rule' and so against the will of God.
(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Why is this so hard for Orangebox to wrap his head around?They scare me too.
I'm telling you. . . People who honestly need a parental figure to tell them "murder is wrong" really scare me.
(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: He said before that there's no way to conclude torture is wrong without God. Really, another person screaming in agony isn't enough to sway you? Wow.The question asked is 'Why?'. From an evolutionary perspective why is it immoral? The zebra screaming in pain doesn't make the lion immoral, nor sway him/her from killing the zebra.
(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
What do you mean by 'objective meaning'?
(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
More importantly, just taking his commands as discrete actions on their own, devoid of additional divine impetus, they'd still produce effects that are demonstrably beneficial or detrimental.
Sure, but why deny the cause while enjoying the effect.
(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So an atheist could perform those actions, observe their effects, and extrapolate those effects through a simple "what if everyone behaved like this?" question, and hence formulate a moral system based upon the well being of people.
Yes, although the atheist would have no rational foundation for his/her explanation apart from circular reasoning and the moral system would be subjective.
(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, when your society's murder rate skyrockets because suddenly everyone thinks it's okay to kill people, and thus the number of people around to operate the social infrastructure dips, I'd consider that a negative effect objectively, given our starting condition is keeping society cohesive, no? And hence any moral rule that restricts that action is beneficial in that it prevents a negative effect, yes?
This stuff isn't amazingly hard.
All agreeable statements. The number of people killed by other people is objectively measured. What those numbers mean or how they are interpreted is subjective. The fact that you named the statistic (at least some number within that category) 'murder' presupposes morality. You view a high murder rate (people killing people) as a negative effect (as do I). However, some people hold to a different interpretation of the number of people killed. Take for example people who subscribe to the Georgia Guidestones. One of their commandments states that in order to keep a society cohesive, earth's population shouldn't exceed 500 million people (some would even go with less: Ted Turner and Dave Foreman). To them a high murder rate within society would be beneficial because it accomplishes the goal of reducing population down to a number that creates a condition to keep society cohesive (ie a population of 500 million or less). And thus people killing people would be moral. It is the individuals subjective interpretation of the objective data that does not allow for an explanation of morality.
(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Point taken. Although you would agree that eye and hair color are preexisting genetic information. Communication with animals would require not just different preexisting genes being activated but entirely new functioning genes. As a note they (prophet species) must not have been able to mate with the human species since we don't see them today!
Not every mutation is a speciation event; changes in eye and hair color are mutations, but you don't consider redheads to be another species, right? Speciation events require large enough changes that, cladistically speaking, the two iterations of the species are quite starkly different from one another.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
