The Existence Of Morality

[crowTrobot 2]

Everything does, and you dance around those meanings whenever you get stuck.

who's stuck? you're trying to to tell me (and VB) what we mean when we use a word. stop being a semantics nazi.

[crowTrobot 2]

And crow's 'because we realized that being good was good' argument would be about the lamest direction you can go...so hopefully we can go a little better direction.

i said nothing of the sort.seriously, can you stop and at least consider the possibility that you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any conclusions about what results are or aren't possible?

[Balloon guy 158]

i said nothing of the sort.seriously, can you stop and at least consider the possibility that you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any conclusions about what results are or aren't possible?

evolution is only hard to understand when you change the meaning eveytime you find you can't defend it's validity.but all serious people who study things know this and agree with me.

[crowTrobot 2]

evolution is only hard to understand when you change the meaning eveytime you find you can't defend it's validity.

there's no definition changing going on. all that's happening in this thread is you are claiming empathetic behavior can't possiblity be beneficial in any way, and people are showing you why you're wrong but you have your eyes closed and the part of your brain that can reason objectively turned off.

[BaseJester 1]

Such as the morality of letting an unhealthy child live. A child that is never going to be anything but a burden on a family, contributes nothing to the betterment of a society or a family, and is in fact a drain.I am curious how you would argue that the marol decision to grant that this person's life is more important than the family's financial, emotional, and practicle well being could have evolved from a darwinian evolutionary beginning that all 'learned' men believe?

Evolution would favor groups that have empathy. You're positing a particular instance when empathy is counter-productive to the society. Caring for this child isn't a behavior that evolution can drive directly. It's a behavior that's a result of a generally advantageous attribute. You're not arguing that morals are counter-productive for a group when their effect is taken as a whole, right?Have I ever been attracted to a woman who wasn't ovulating? Yep. What? you say. How could this instinct possibly have evolved? I don't have to show that copulating with non-ovulating women helps the species survive to defend evolution. I have to defend only that the desire to copulate with women who might be ovulating would be an advantage.

[Balloon guy 158]

there's no definition changing going on. all that's happening in this thread is you are claiming empathetic behavior can't possiblity be beneficial in any way, and people are showing you why you're wrong but you have your eyes closed and the part of your brain that can reason objectively turned off.

No, you are dodging your original statement that evolution gave us morality.You are also competely comfortable to imply that there is a direction to both evolution of life and evolution of morality, then when called on it tell me I don't understand evolution.You are completely comfortable to imply that there is a 'best' way for things to go, then ignore when I point out that logical reality that in order for there to be a best or worst, there must either be a director, or a foundational good or bad meter.Your constant statements about how I don't understand things is just your weak attempt to distance yourself from the fundementally flawed foundation you have created in your decision to hold to the religion of Chance.In fact you never want to explain, or debate anything to see what is going on with the issue at deeper levels. You quickly and arrogently disregard anyone who holds a view different than you. It's because you have invested so much of your soul into the Dawkins school of "I don't want to believe" that I don't think you are constiutionally capable of addressing anything that even you have questions about. ( Not that you have any questions, why would there be any questions about the entire history of life and it's purpose, cause, direction or validity? It's so obvious to all the scientist who know the answer )So while you may have a few cheerleaders, let's not pretend that the adults are impressed.

[Balloon guy 158]

Evolution would favor groups that have empathy. You're positing a particular instance when empathy is counter-productive to the society. Caring for this child isn't a behavior that evolution can drive directly. It's a behavior that's a result of a generally advantageous attribute. You're not arguing that morals are counter-productive for a group when their effect is taken as a whole, right?Have I ever been attracted to a woman who wasn't ovulating? Yep. What? you say. How could this instinct possibly have evolved? I don't have to show that copulating with non-ovulating women helps the species survive to defend evolution. I have to defend only that the desire to copulate with women who might be ovulating would be an advantage.

I am not trying to argue whether empathy is advantageous or not, it is. Hugely, as a trait that gives nobility to our lives. But that nobility is irrelevant in evolution. It would be like a trait that says let's give thieves another chance no matter how amny times they steal. As a trait we may decide it is nobel, but as a practical matter it is just holding us back.I am trying to see how evolutionist can say that from a neutral beginning, with no foundation of right or wrong, empathy could have been advanced as a superior trait to have in a darwinian environmentEspecially when almost every culture since recorded history has shown a lack of empathy in most dealings with people of different races, religions and national backgrounds. And from a darwinian perspectibve, empathy is an anchor to the purposeful advancement of a species. No other animal would risk the clan for a deformed baby.

[BaseJester 1]

I am trying to see how evolutionist can say that from a neutral beginning, with no foundation of right or wrong, empathy could have been advanced as a superior trait to have in a darwinian environment.

I am not trying to argue whether empathy is advantageous or not, it is.

There you go. You answered your own question.

[crowTrobot 2]

You are also competely comfortable to imply that there is a direction to both evolution of life and evolution of morality, then when called on it tell me I don't understand evolution.

direction is a misleading term and you're the only one using it.

You are completely comfortable to imply that there is a 'best' way for things to go, then ignore when I point out that logical reality that in order for there to be a best or worst, there must either be a director, or a foundational good or bad meter.

there are positive or negative results to different behavior in terms of survival/flourishing in a social context for any social species. the positive or negative nature of those "ways for things to go" aren't predefined though, which is what you are trying to imply. they are simply dictated by circumstances and aren't attached to the specific behavior before hand, and they don't require a director or imply a "direction". it's just cause and effect and causes that lead to positive effects under certain circumstances tend to proliferate under those circumstances.

Your constant statements about how I don't understand things is just your weak attempt to distance yourself from the fundementally flawed foundation you have created in your decision to hold to the religion of Chance.

everyone responding to you in this thread thinks you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any objective conclusions about the origin of behavior. i was just trying to semi-politely get you to consider the possibility as the reason this debate is going nowhere.

In fact you never want to explain, or debate anything to see what is going on with the issue at deeper levels.

jeez lash out much? i never want to explain or debate anything? maybe i'm poor at explaining things in a way you can relate to, but otherwise that's obviously false. give me a break. i'm one of the biggest mass-debaters here.

You quickly and arrogently disregard anyone who holds a view different than you.

also obviously false. i don't disregard any view. i'm occasionally condesceding in explaining why a view is nonsense, but so is almost everyone else here including you. in fact a lot of that starts with you. don't take it personally if some of it comes back your way

[crowTrobot 2]

I am not trying to argue whether empathy is advantageous or not, it is. Hugely, as a trait that gives nobility to our lives. But that nobility is irrelevant in evolution.

why can't feeling good about yourself be an evolutionary positive, particularly in a social context?

It would be like a trait that says let's give thieves another chance no matter how amny times they steal. As a trait we may decide it is nobel, but as a practical matter it is just holding us back.

not much of an example since i don't know anybody who would think giving social offenders unlimited chances would be a moral action. your god certainly doesn't seem to.

I am trying to see how evolutionist can say that from a neutral beginning, with no foundation of right or wrong, empathy could have been advanced as a superior trait to have in a darwinian environment

start by thinking of things in gradual steps, not as a switch turning on.

Especially when almost every culture since recorded history has shown a lack of empathy in most dealings with people of different races, religions and national backgrounds.

empathy transcending tribalism has been evolving gradually since way before jesus. it's still spotty, but increasing.

No other animal would risk the clan for a deformed baby.

actually many do (some even raise other parasitic species as their own). as jester already pointed out a strong instinct to ensure the survival of offspring doesn't have to discriminate to be beneficial.

[rjkdb8 1]

No definition ever means what it means if in the meaning you would have to admit that something means something that you don't like the idea of it meaning that.I go into all your posts expecting this now.

Everything does, and you dance around those meanings whenever you get stuck.It's your MOLike Telly Savalas and his sucker, opperate one way.

but all serious people who study things know this and agree with me.

BG, you're obviously very well respected around here (for good reason), and I generally find you to be pretty funny, but I have to say you've basically devolved into doing nothing but trolling in this thread. The way in which you just disregard numerous extremely thoughtful responses to the nonsense you're posting here is nothing short of HollywoodAFDesque. Crow argues his positions in such an impersonal and intellectual manner that your attacks just reek of desperation and betray the realization (subconsciously anyway) that you're out of your league. I suppose this is your cue to accuse me and crow of being the same person, just as Holly liked to do. But you're better than that.If ever were someone with a mind open enough to think critically about this issue to stumble across this thread in the future, they will be in an extremely fine position to judge the merits of the arguments espoused here. This has the potential to be quite the public service.

[brvheart 1,752]

And I would compare my moments of true spiritual connection during normal worship at church to any you've experienced even when you were lying to break into a really cool buddhist monestary.

Hey BG, this reminded me... and is totally offtopic... but do you use itunes? If so, download this album immediately and tell me what you think of songs 5 & 6.Psalms by Sovereign Grace Music(You will not be disappointed in your purchase)

[Balloon guy 158]

Hey BG, this reminded me... and is totally offtopic... but do you use itunes? If so, download this album immediately and tell me what you think of songs 5 & 6.Psalms by Sovereign Grace Music(You will not be disappointed in your purchase)

Don't do itunes, don't have any clue how to listn to music on the interweb, don't have an ipod etc.I bought my wife one 2 year ago, she never opened it, and someone stole it from our store 6 months later.But I do love good worship music...almost the only music I listen to, that and Third Day, Jeremy Camp and Dean Martin, oh and Sinatra of course.Just never was really into music much though.Did run the sound at my church for 3 years though.And I have perfect pitch I think...

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, you're obviously very well respected around here (for good reason), and I generally find you to be pretty funny, but I have to say you've basically devolved into doing nothing but trolling in this thread. The way in which you just disregard numerous extremely thoughtful responses to the nonsense you're posting here is nothing short of HollywoodAFDesque. Crow argues his positions in such an impersonal and intellectual manner that your attacks just reek of desperation and betray the realization (subconsciously anyway) that you're out of your league. I suppose this is your cue to accuse me and crow of being the same person, just as Holly liked to do. But you're better than that.If ever were someone with a mind open enough to think critically about this issue to stumble across this thread in the future, they will be in an extremely fine position to judge the merits of the arguments espoused here. This has the potential to be quite the public service.

you're right, quick dismissal is too good for it. it's something to laugh at and mock.

the transition was your fault obviously. otherwise everyone was getting bored because your lack of comprehension about evolution was making it pointless.you think no arguments have been made becuse you aren't capable of understanding them. as spade said when it comes to an objective understanding of even the most simple principals of something like evolution your brain is broke (that's not meant as an insult, it's a serious observation).

i said nothing of the sort.seriously, can you stop and at least consider the possibility that you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any conclusions about what results are or aren't possible?

there's no definition changing going on. all that's happening in this thread is you are claiming empathetic behavior can't possiblity be beneficial in any way, and people are showing you why you're wrong but you have your eyes closed and the part of your brain that can reason objectively turned off.

When crow responds with points, I address them. But his MO is one of superiority bordering on arrogance.It gets old.It would help somewhat if in the 4,000 posts he has he would have spent maybe a small percent of them elsewhere, but he's spent 4 years in religion, on a poker forum, attacking everyone who thinks different from him, with a long ago stated goal of seeing all religion vanish. He is not interested in debate or finding out anything new, he is firmly convinced that he knows more than any religious person simply by the fact that they are religious. And he likes to let you know that you aren't smart enough to have an opinion if you disagree with him.He cherry picks small points he thinks he can belittle, then ignores any arguements he doesn't have an answer for with his standard twofer:1. You don't understand what it means2. Everyone who is smart already believes what I believe.I got tired of it and lashed out.Was I wrong? maybe.I do dumb things all the time, why should this forum be any different?And for the record, Kramit and vb disagree with me, and we have a civil discourse with humor. So apparently I am capable of disagreeing and have a conversation with the person.

[brvheart 1,752]

Don't do itunes, don't have any clue how to listn to music on the interweb, don't have an ipod etc.I bought my wife one 2 year ago, she never opened it, and someone stole it from our store 6 months later.But I do love good worship music...almost the only music I listen to, that and Third Day, Jeremy Camp and Dean Martin, oh and Sinatra of course.Just never was really into music much though.Did run the sound at my church for 3 years though.And I have perfect pitch I think...

Buy it on Amazon then. It's all worship music. http://www.amazon.com/Psalms-Sovereign-Gra...2538&sr=8-2Or on the sovereign grace website it's way cheaper:Every song on the CD is based on a Psalm. Song 6 is probably my favorite, based on Psalm 23.Listen to the samples of tracks 5 and 6 and tell me it's not awesome. I dare you.

[vbnautilus 48]

I am not trying to argue whether empathy is advantageous or not, it is. Hugely, as a trait that gives nobility to our lives. But that nobility is irrelevant in evolution. It would be like a trait that says let's give thieves another chance no matter how amny times they steal. As a trait we may decide it is nobel, but as a practical matter it is just holding us back.

Empathy is not holding us back as a practical matter. It's practically advantageous to us, that's why evolution selected for it.

I am trying to see how evolutionist can say that from a neutral beginning, with no foundation of right or wrong, empathy could have been advanced as a superior trait to have in a darwinian environment

From a (biological) evolutionary perspective all it needs to do is provide practical benefit for reproductive success. It's quite easy to show how empathy does this. Empathy between parents and children increases childcare... it leads to cooperation and mutual helping, etc.. which all make survival and thus reproduction more likely. Its pretty easy to show that a community of social animals without empathy would not survive as well as those with empathy. Likely there were such individuals and they did not succeed as well.

Especially when almost every culture since recorded history has shown a lack of empathy in most dealings with people of different races, religions and national backgrounds. And from a darwinian perspectibve, empathy is an anchor to the purposeful advancement of a species. No other animal would risk the clan for a deformed baby.

I agree that empathy is stronger for those within your own social group. The evolutionary perspective explains this quite well, since those in your close social group are more likely to share genes with you and also to aid in your survival through mutual cooperation. If the other guys want to kill you, it may benefit you not to empathize with them so you can defend yourself. Genes that favor this kind of pattern of empathy are more likely to find themselves replicated. ( I actually ran an experiment a few months ago which showed that people from our university experience stronger emotions when looking at emotional faces of people from the same university, as opposed faces from a rival school. In-group empathy is stronger than out-group empathy. )Now -- I happen to think that this in-group effect is no longer to our advantage since the conditions have changed and we are so connected to everyone on the planet that we must extend our mutual cooperation to the whole thing.P.S. I do think the language you use when describing evolution seems to indicate some non-trivial misunderstandings about how the theory works, but I think both sides share some of the burden of clearing that up.

[crowTrobot 2]

When crow responds with points, I address them. But his MO is one of superiority bordering on arrogance.It gets old.

god you're a manipulative SOB lol. the first quote of mine there was obviously a joke about pascal's wager, which as you are well aware i have spent more time debating the merits of here than anyone else, including briefly in this thread. as for the other 3, people aren't blind. i've attempted to make a bunch of points in this thread that you've blown off as "attacks" because you currently aren't capable of an objective understanding of evolution - you have misconceptions that have been hardwired in by religious propaganda. as i said i was just pointing this out, not making any kind of personal attack. trying to get you to consider the possibility that you are viewing the subject through your misconceptions isn't arrogance.

It would help somewhat if in the 4,000 posts he has he would have spent maybe a small percent of them elsewhere

i have duh.

but he's spent 4 years in religion, on a poker forum, attacking everyone who thinks different from him

trying to tell someone why i think they are wrong or misguided isn't attacking. not my fault you take that personally. i have done this lots of places. you aren't my only bitch.

He is not interested in debate or finding out anything new, he is firmly convinced that he knows more than any religious person simply by the fact that they are religious. And he likes to let you know that you aren't smart enough to have an opinion if you disagree with him.

obviously false.

He cherry picks small points he thinks he can belittle, then ignores any arguements he doesn't have an answer for with his standard twofer:1. You don't understand what it means2. Everyone who is smart already believes what I believe.

obviously false.

And for the record, Kramit and vb disagree with me, and we have a civil discourse with humor. So apparently I am capable of disagreeing and have a conversation with the person.

you're the one being antagonistic.

[Balloon guy 158]

god you're a manipulative SOB lol. the first quote of mine there was obviously a joke about pascal's wager, which as you are well aware i have spent more time debating the merits of here than anyone else, including briefly in this thread. as for the other 3, people aren't blind. i've attempted to make a bunch of points in this thread that you've blown off as "attacks" because you currently aren't capable of an objective understanding of evolution - you have misconceptions that have been hardwired in by religious propaganda. as i said i was just pointing this out, not making any kind of personal attack. trying to get you to consider the possibility that you are viewing the subject through your misconceptions isn't arrogance.i have duh. trying to tell someone why i think they are wrong or misguided isn't attacking. not my fault you take that personally. i have done this lots of places. you aren't my only bitch.obviously false. obviously false.you're the one being antagonistic.

If only I was capable of being smart like you

[Balloon guy 158]

P.S. I do think the language you use when describing evolution seems to indicate some non-trivial misunderstandings about how the theory works, but I think both sides share some of the burden of clearing that up.

I am writing a new thread that will alow us to clarify all the points us poor Christians is confused about.It will be fun for all most of us.What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions etc, just as we were getting to the good stuff, crow began jumping ahead to tell me everyone why I am just trying to make the case that planets are astronomically difficult to form and that some how..yawn..proves evolution wrong. the thread got sidetracked and LLY never finished, leaving me with swirling masses of cosmic dust spinning on their own inertia, soaring through the vast universe, and getting caught in the gravitational pull of our sun to condense into large masses that were the correct distance to maintain perfect orbits for millions of years. I never got past that part...which happened 9 times, or 8...I forget, oh and with moons, a bunch of them...you know, the tricky part.So the last time I started a thread asking honest questions about evolution, it was quickly derailed into my being put on the defensive for my beliefs, instead of an actual instructional thread about how planets formed. Because if you asks difficult questions of evolutionist, they get testy.Don't get me started on where matter comes from...you know 1st law of thermodynamics and such.So some people are late to this party, but the party has a history. And history will repeat itself again, because everything continues just as it always has...right?

[crowTrobot 2]

If only I was capable of being smart like you

stop interpreting my posts like i'm incapable of having any kind of sense of humor

[Balloon guy 158]

stop interpreting my posts like i'm incapable of having any kind of sense of humor

See now, the fact that you don't understand when and where you can use it...proves you don't have it.It's okay, lots of people are humorless Now if I finished that with a profanity, level 7-8, the over the topness would be make the joke lost because of our current feud, so I pulled it back to a level of 4 and kept the civility, therefore allowing you to laugh with us, at you.It's science, proves God has a sense of humor. It's in the Bible

[crowTrobot 2]

What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions etc, just as we were getting to the good stuff, crow began jumping ahead to tell me everyone why I am just trying to make the case that planets are astronomically difficult to form and that some how..yawn..proves evolution wrong. the thread got sidetracked and LLY never finished, leaving me with swirling masses of cosmic dust spinning on their own inertia, soaring through the vast universe, and getting caught in the gravitational pull of our sun to condense into large masses that were the correct distance to maintain perfect orbits for millions of years. I never got past that part...which happened 9 times, or 8...I forget, oh and with moons, a bunch of them...you know, the tricky part.

the thread is still there if anybody wants to check and see how big of a BS spin artist you are. i doubt anybody does because they already know.

[crowTrobot 2]

See now, the fact that you don't understand when and where you can use it...proves you don't have it.It's okay, lots of people are humorless Now if I finished that with a profanity, level 7-8, the over the topness would be make the joke lost because of our current feud, so I pulled it back to a level of 4 and kept the civility, therefore allowing you to laugh with us, at you.

you're the only one fueding. i'm just defending myself.

[BaseJester 1]

I am writing a new thread that will alow us to clarify all the points us poor Christians is confused about.It will be fun for all most of us.What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions etc, just as we were getting to the good stuff, crow began jumping ahead to tell me everyone why I am just trying to make the case that planets are astronomically difficult to form and that some how..yawn..proves evolution wrong.

This one?

[Balloon guy 158]

This one?

Surprisingly, I remember myself being much funnier and having more fun, and crow being crankier.It did not happen exactly how I remember.I think I can see that I was a bit of an ass at times. I gave some condescending remarks to some people, crow included.I should just be happy being right all the time...