The Existence Of Morality

[Balloon guy 158]

our tendency toward what you would describe as moral behavior has increased (gradually)throughout human history. however that doesn't mean there has to be a time when we had none. there isno reason to think our pre-human ancestors didn't have a more simple "proto"-morality that has expandedwith our increasing self-awareness and intelligence, and increasingly complex social structuresand interdependency.

so you admit not knowing what there was to begin with while you claim to know what transpired sicne then..in the same sentence...without any examples otehr than we just know.and I'm supposed to believe you why?Because you're addicted to arguing from the authority?while claiming to be the authority?

[crowTrobot 2]

so you admit not knowing what there was to begin with while you claim to know what transpired sicne then..in the same sentence...without any examples otehr than we just know.and I'm supposed to believe you why?Because you're addicted to arguing from the authority?while claiming to be the authority?

i'm pointing out the obvious, not arguing from authority. if you want to dispute that moral tendencies among homo sapiens have historically on averageincreased with increase in sophistication, we can debate that. i don't see the point.

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm pointing out the obvious, not arguing from authority. if you want to dispute that moral tendencies among homo sapiens have historically on averageincreased with increase in sophistication, we can debate that. i don't see the point.

Going to pause here and enjoy this statement for a moment...

[crowTrobot 2]

Going to pause here and enjoy this statement for a moment...

you're going to pause and hope to misdirect from the point like you always do.

[Balloon guy 158]

you're going to pause and hope to misdirect from the point like you always do.

Still enjoying it.

[crowTrobot 2]

Still enjoying it.

that's it. close your eyes and it will all go away.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's it. close your eyes and it will all go away.

And it still delivers

[Randy Reed 0]

The notion that Christians are saying that without God we would devolve into beast is a strawman because the arguement requires that first morality exists, then goes away. It is the evolutionist posistion that at one time there was no morality, and that it evolved on it's own.It's indicative of the parasitical need that athiest have to take the things God has given soceity and try to pretend it just showed up on its own and therefore it can be claimed to be more proof that God doesn't exist. Which is the original point that Hitchens was trying to make when he postulated this ridiculous claim.Therefore the point I was trying to make was that the athiest position that there was once no morality, then it evolved on it's own along side darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection is at best contridictory. But better described as faith based to believe morality evolved for no reason but the ones that caused everything else to evolve.Actually your example represents better the belief that morality evolved on it's own. If this is the case, than your dilemma presents the problem of arguing that morality evolved. Darwinian evolution allows for each of your character's actions to have merit and validity, equally. Only a belief that there is a right and wrong outside of the society of this 11th century village results in any of their actions being subject to judgement. Only with a moral code above all human input allows us to determine that any of those actions are right or wrong.Also you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of what the Bible would say about selling a niece into slavery. I'm not saying that people claiming to be Christians haven't also perverted what the Bible says to do these types of actions, but your and their misunderstanding doesn't override what the Bible actually says.

So were people immoral before Christianity? In the bible does it say that when Jesus appeared he instantly gave morality to the masses? Must have missed it.

Compassion is one of many traits of morality. It is however one that can often fly into the face of survival instincts, desire to procreate, and need to eat. Making it a difficult one to try to argue it's evolution. In fact until we evolved compassion, we couldn't gain from it's practise.

I think it's been asked a couple dozen times, but what do consider morality? Is hatred a part of morality. If God gave us compassion as a virtue did he give us hatred as well? It's certainly beena big help and we wouldn't be here without it ya know. My point of the whole story was that you act like there is a certain moral code that all should follow. Who are you to decide? We could argue that the killing the rapist was moral on her part, but not for the rapist, he died. So is morality something that is just good for the masses? And isn't that what we've been saying evolved all along. Compasion, hatred, love, fear are nothing more than physical emotions, not morality. Morality would be a decision to do what is percieved as being right. That perception is skewed by who's judging the morality. Is the best Jesus could do the ten commandments? Heck, confusious kicked his but then.

[Balloon guy 158]

So were people immoral before Christianity? In the bible does it say that when Jesus appeared he instantly gave morality to the masses? Must have missed it.

God gave us an innate sense of morality from creation

I think it's been asked a couple dozen times, but what do consider morality? Is hatred a part of morality. If God gave us compassion as a virtue did he give us hatred as well? It's certainly beena big help and we wouldn't be here without it ya know. My point of the whole story was that you act like there is a certain moral code that all should follow. Who are you to decide? We could argue that the killing the rapist was moral on her part, but not for the rapist, he died. So is morality something that is just good for the masses? And isn't that what we've been saying evolved all along. Compasion, hatred, love, fear are nothing more than physical emotions, not morality. Morality would be a decision to do what is percieved as being right. That perception is skewed by who's judging the morality. Is the best Jesus could do the ten commandments? Heck, confusious kicked his but then.

Confusious was born 4,500 years after Moses wrote the 10 commandments...which was only a small small list of the moral codes found in the Old Testament Bible.You are trying to argue that only the things written in the Bible comprise the moral code of God. This would not be my belief. If God created us, and created a moral code which he planted in us, we would be living with this code always. It's written form would not be the beginning of its existance, only the example of man attempting to formalize that which we already know to be right and wrong. And the fact that all men generally see these right and wrong actions and attribute value on them in general supports the idea that God planted them inside our conscience.And any examples of people breaking this code only supports the reality of sin entering our lives through Eve's betrayal.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

And any examples of people breaking this code only supports the reality of sin entering our lives through Eve's betrayal.

[crowTrobot 2]

Confusious was born 4,500 years after Moses wrote the 10 commandments...

so confusious was a character on futurama?

[vbnautilus 48]

And the fact that all men generally see these right and wrong actions and attribute value on them in general supports the idea that God planted them inside our conscience.

This would also be true if morality evolved as an inherent part of living in social situations. So in fact, the evidence that moral rules are very old or ubiquitous does not distinguish between our two points of view. Evidence against evolved social morality would involve something like: 1. showing that our non-human ancestors had nothing that looks like a precursor to our morality, or 2. that morality exists even in animals that don't live in social groups, or 3. that only people with access to certain religious information display morality, or 4. that moral rules decreased reproductive or cultural success.

[Spademan 94]

Confusious was born 4,500 years after Moses wrote the 10 commandments

...

[vbnautilus 48]

I think makes Moses older than the earth.

[Spademan 94]

I think [that] makes Moses older than the earth.

Or it means Confucius is younger than the present. That just blew my mind.

[Balloon guy 158]

so confusious was a character on futurama?

oopsGot my age of the earth mixed up with the date of Moses leading the nation Israel through the Sinai desert without leaving a trace.Point still stands that Confusious was late to the party for claiming any copyright on written morality.

[Balloon guy 158]

This would also be true if morality evolved as an inherent part of living in social situations. So in fact, the evidence that moral rules are very old or ubiquitous does not distinguish between our two points of view.

agreed

Evidence against evolved social morality would involve something like: 1. showing that our non-human ancestors had nothing that looks like a precursor to our morality, or 2. that morality exists even in animals that don't live in social groups, or 3. that only people with access to certain religious information display morality, or 4. that moral rules decreased reproductive or cultural success.

1. No such thing, so kind of hard to get them to write down how they didn't see the big deal in downloading music for free off the internet2. Like Wombats?3. If they had to read about it to have it, then it wouldn't be inherent would it?4. Never made the case that morality was not a good thing for society, only that Darwinian evolution methods are contrary to morality.

[crowTrobot 2]

Point still stands that Confusious was late to the party for claiming any copyright on written morality.

not if moses was a mythological character and the torah wasn't written until centuries after he supposedly lived, which iswhat virtually all non-apologist scholars think.that's not the point anyway. the point was confusious (and gautama buddha also) have writings attributed to them that area much better fit with modern views of morality than what's in the torah.

[crowTrobot 2]

4. Never made the case that morality was not a good thing for society, only that Darwinian evolution methods are contrary to morality.

it has been pointed out to you about 50 times in this thread that for species that depend on societies, what is a good thing for society IS a "darwinian evolution method".the fitness and strength of the social group itself can be a survival benefit for individuals.that's not really that hard of a concept to grasp, and you're not really stupid. stop ignoring the possibility and try thinking objectively about it.

[vbnautilus 48]

4. Never made the case that morality was not a good thing for society, only that Darwinian evolution methods are contrary to morality.

Right, in order to do that, you would have to show that moral rules decrease reproductive or cultural success. You don't even seem to think that's true, so it is still a mystery why you think morality is contrary to evolution.

[Randy Reed 0]

God gave us an innate sense of morality from creationConfusious was born 4,500 years after Moses wrote the 10 commandments...which was only a small small list of the moral codes found in the Old Testament Bible.You are trying to argue that only the things written in the Bible comprise the moral code of God. This would not be my belief. If God created us, and created a moral code which he planted in us, we would be living with this code always. It's written form would not be the beginning of its existance, only the example of man attempting to formalize that which we already know to be right and wrong. And the fact that all men generally see these right and wrong actions and attribute value on them in general supports the idea that God planted them inside our conscience.And any examples of people breaking this code only supports the reality of sin entering our lives through Eve's betrayal.

So the all powerful God and creator instilled in some of humanity a sense of right and wrong but not all? Or we all got it but the evil opposite other almost all powerfulfull thingy can overide him. Right.And furthermore, when he finally got around to having some disciples put it into words they didn't do a very good job at it. He must have needed a betterheadhunter when he went looking for them I guess.And the damndest thing happened along the way. Now that God instilled it and told us about it (morality) we still don't get to know what the hell it is or what he meant since it's all to confusing. Don't kill, kill, don't kill. Do what I said not what I did etc. Oh and if he went to all the trouble to send his only son down here to save our asses from everlasting hellfire what the hell happened. Did Jesus forget? Did God thwap him on the head when he got back home and call him a dumbass? Well, after all this we know there are no moral absolutes I guess he just gave us a general feeling to do good more than the bad feelings he gave us. You also say that this general feeling in no way came about through our evolution despite the fact there is credible evidence to the contrary. And at this point you'll throw out another red herring, claim we all don't understand, then say, flying spaghetti monster 9 times and tell us we are all confused, blind and being willfully immoral for making you look like a dumbass yet again.Hopefully one day you'll break it all down in the brain in yours and come to terms that we all just animals on a very insignificant planet in stuck back cornerof the Milky Way. And maybe then, when you accept that and realize that this is all there is, you will develop some morals.

[Balloon guy 158]

Right, in order to do that, you would have to show that moral rules decrease reproductive or cultural success. You don't even seem to think that's true, so it is still a mystery why you think morality is contrary to evolution.

wouldn't I have to show that morality and darwinian evolution are at odds? Not that morality decreases advances in society. I think morality from God is exactly what increasing civilization.I am claiming morality existed from day one, inside each of us. It is your side that says that at one time there was none, and it appeared and increased in strength over time.

[Balloon guy 158]

So the all powerful God and creator instilled in some of humanity a sense of right and wrong but not all? Or we all got it but the evil opposite other almost all powerfulfull thingy can overide him. Right.And furthermore, when he finally got around to having some disciples put it into words they didn't do a very good job at it. He must have needed a betterheadhunter when he went looking for them I guess.And the damndest thing happened along the way. Now that God instilled it and told us about it (morality) we still don't get to know what the hell it is or what he meant since it's all to confusing. Don't kill, kill, don't kill. Do what I said not what I did etc. Oh and if he went to all the trouble to send his only son down here to save our asses from everlasting hellfire what the hell happened. Did Jesus forget? Did God thwap him on the head when he got back home and call him a dumbass? Well, after all this we know there are no moral absolutes I guess he just gave us a general feeling to do good more than the bad feelings he gave us. You also say that this general feeling in no way came about through our evolution despite the fact there is credible evidence to the contrary. And at this point you'll throw out another red herring, claim we all don't understand, then say, flying spaghetti monster 9 times and tell us we are all confused, blind and being willfully immoral for making you look like a dumbass yet again.Hopefully one day you'll break it all down in the brain in yours and come to terms that we all just animals on a very insignificant planet in stuck back cornerof the Milky Way. And maybe then, when you accept that and realize that this is all there is, you will develop some morals.

I read this twice. I have no idea what you think you are saying, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

[Balloon guy 158]

it has been pointed out to you about 50 times in this thread that for species that depend on societies, what is a good thing for society IS a "darwinian evolution method".the fitness and strength of the social group itself can be a survival benefit for individuals.

So you agree that the morality God gave us is good for civilization...okay, I agree.Now it is on you and your claim that morality evolved to show how there was none, and then it appeared, then it increaded civilization. Please use data based facts to make your case.

that's not really that hard of a concept to grasp, and you're not really stupid. stop ignoring the possibility and try thinking objectively about it.

You have based your argument on the opinion that morality evolved because it would be good for society. That isn't a good basis to prove that it evolved unless you are firmly convinced that it did exactly what you are claiming to be able to prove, by the nature of it existing.It would be like you claiming that man evolved because man is here now, without pointing to your contention that there is fossil records that back this up. You are not giving me one shred of proof other than, it would be the only way society could evolve..which isn't much to base your theory on, since the alternative belief, mine, is that morality existed seperate from man, and was given to man in our conscience thought, which is another metaphysical thing that goes against evolution, but I don't want to get into what thought is, even though it is an interesting discussion.Apparently you guys think that it is answered. I don't think you make your case, you do, I don't, you continue to pretend you have answered this, I point out that you haven't, you claim I am not listening, then we leave for a couple days.I guess we can leave now for a couple days?

[Balloon guy 158]

not if moses was a mythological character and the torah wasn't written until centuries after he supposedly lived, which iswhat virtually all non-apologist scholars think.

Both of them?

that's not the point anyway. the point was confusious (and gautama buddha also) have writings attributed to them that area much better fit with modern views of morality than what's in the torah.

Saying that morality written by men is a better fit to the current condition of man isn't as good a point as you are pretending it is. Unless you want to say that there is an external benchmark to these two moralities that you can compare and rate them.