The Existence Of Morality

[Balloon guy 158]

Good luck with that one.Every example you could bring up will be tied to or modeled after religion.The Catholic Churches involvement or the figurehead of the 'non-religious state' being literally deified, replacing one god for another.

So a country that holds that all religion is bad, outlaws the church, and embraces the idea of the state, would be attributed to a model of the catholic church?Yea, I would lose with those rules.

[Spademan 94]

So a country that holds that all religion is bad, outlaws the church, and embraces the idea of the state, would be attributed to a model of the catholic church?Yea, I would lose with those rules.

You suffer from a lack of historical knowledge. You are spouting lines you've heard from other people, without knowing why they fail.Look into the Church's involvement in the systems of which you speak. Not just modeling, but actual sanction and collaboration.Actually study the issue for yourself, so you don't talk gibberish that you picked up from someone along the way.Research how the hierarchy of these systems were thought of by their flock. Incorporate their god-status and how this reverence acted as the catalyst for their atrocities into your currently weak and ignorant understanding of people, places and events. Or continue to toil in your delusions. Either way.

[Balloon guy 158]

You suffer from a lack of historical knowledge. You are spouting lines you've heard from other people, without knowing why they fail.Look into the Church's involvement in the systems of which you speak. Not just modeling, but actual sanction and collaboration.Actually study the issue for yourself, so you don't talk gibberish that you picked up from someone along the way.Research how the hierarchy of these systems were thought of by their flock. Incorporate their god-status and how this reverence acted as the catalyst for their atrocities into your currently weak and ignorant understanding of people, places and events. Or continue to toil in your delusions. Either way.

Yea..my bad.All true historians see communism as an offshoot archtype of the Southern Baptist women's sufferage movement.I wonder if the communist would have existed first, if the church would be seen as just another exmaple of this governmental institution.

[rjkdb8 1]

Yea it's weird how almost every country that was founded on these principles has done so well...I guess they didn't realize how bad it was to use Judeo-Christian morals in their countries underpinnings.Really too bad how aweful the countries that actively denied these principles have done so bad. I mean really really bad.Like by a factor of 100

Yes, the prohibition against graven images and the instruction to keep the sabbath holy were undoubtedly instrumental to both the success and the detriment of those countries you mention.

[Spademan 94]

Yea..my bad.All true historians see communism as an offshoot archtype of the Southern Baptist women's sufferage movement.I wonder if the communist would have existed first, if the church would be seen as just another exmaple of this governmental institution.

I know, I know. Actually learning about things is more difficult than defending one's position by propping up the slim and spurious arguments of others.Also, applying strict reason and logic to one's beliefs runs the risk of collapsing one's beliefs.These prospects are not to be taken lightly, and I rarely expect a person to go about fixing their system of thought.This is why I, for the most part, just hurl words.It is not for the believer, but those who are observing who may be on the fence when it comes to critical thought, and to show those who utilize critical thought that it is ok to call absurdity absurd.

[crowTrobot 2]

I would never stop at a stop sign making a right hand turn if I wasn't fearful of a ticket.

baby rapist! B) i assume you think always stopping when turning right doesn't have any real benefit for society, so kind of a trivial example in relation to the point i'm trying to make. but i'm not making my point very well so my fault to put it another way, assuming societies got started at all (i think they would), IMO humanity would eventually evolve to instinctively and/or intellectually consider the biggies like stealing/murder/rape etc. immoral in a social context, and most mentally stable people would evolve not to do them whether they were punished at any point in history or not, even if there was some form of personal benefit to the actions. that's the direction i see social evolution taking us now in fact, or at least i'm optimistic about it.

You can't take fear out of behavior and morality is judgment on that behavior.

i know you can't actually separate fear from behavior. i'm just saying the specific behavior that leads to social fitness wouldn't change either way.

[crowTrobot 2]

I will then bring up atheism's wonderful little track record.

yawn

[crowTrobot 2]

In September 2003, National Geographic reported that “there are more slaves today than were seized fromAfrica in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”700,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year according to the Trafficking in Persons Report of 2006.

your god would be proud.

[crowTrobot 2]

All true historians see communism as an offshoot archtype of the Southern Baptist women's sufferage movement.

they certainly don't see it as an offshoot of using reason rather than faith to parse theism, which is all atheism is.

[Spademan 94]

i know you can't actually separate fear from behavior. i'm just saying the specific behavior that leads to social fitness wouldn't change either way.

After some cursory thought, I would challenge this statement.I think that behavior in regards to social fitness would vastly change for the better. I can think of a great many offenses that are a result of a rationally inappropriate response to fears, or appropriate response to irrational fears.

[theresa113 0]

After some cursory thought, I would challenge this statement.I think that behavior in regards to social fitness would vastly change for the better. I can think of a great many offenses that are a result of a rationally inappropriate response to fears, or appropriate response to irrational fears.

I would love to see everyone debate a civilized society without the use of fear. But could you create a civilized society without reward? Huh? Could the existence of morality have nothing to do with responses to fears and rewards. Imagine there's no heavenIt's easy if you tryNo hell below usAbove us only skyImagine all the peopleLiving for today...Imagine there's no countriesIt isn't hard to doNothing to kill or die forAnd no religion tooImagine all the peopleLiving life in peace...You may say I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope someday you'll join usAnd the world will be as oneImagine no possessionsI wonder if you canNo need for greed or hungerA brotherhood of manImagine all the peopleSharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope someday you'll join usAnd the world will live as one

[timwakefield 68]

Some animals eat their young.

There is however no species which always eats their young. A species like that very obviously could not last even 2 generations. Obviously humans have a sense of morality that is unlike that of any other animal. We're also about a zillion times smarter than any other animal. So the argument that God gave us our morality is equally as strong or weak as the argument that God gave us our noses so we can smell, and our ears so we can hear, and our lungs so we can breathe, and our penises so we can reproduce. The argument that God's existence is most evident in the sense of morality He gave us makes little sense to me. We have intelligence. Along with intelligence comes things like the discussion of morality, where it came from, what it is, and so on. If we weren't so goddamned intelligent and so goddamned moral as a species, we would not exist to ask those questions. It is our intelligence and our common sense of morality that allowed us to thrive as we have. The insistence that God is the reason for that intelligence is no stronger than the insistence that God is the reason for anything and everything. The fact that without our morality we would not survive simply points to the fact that our species necessarily evolved with a sense of morality. If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here. We did, so we are. If you want to give God credit for that then that's fine, but I don't see why that's a stronger argument than God doing anything else. Like, this thread could be "the existence of livers," expounding the virtues and necessity of the human liver, and how without this piece of miraculous wonder we would not be able to survive in these bodies. So, why is morality a stronger example?

[Balloon guy 158]

There is however no species which always eats their young. A species like that very obviously could not last even 2 generations. Obviously humans have a sense of morality that is unlike that of any other animal. We're also about a zillion times smarter than any other animal. So the argument that God gave us our morality is equally as strong or weak as the argument that God gave us our noses so we can smell, and our ears so we can hear, and our lungs so we can breathe, and our penises so we can reproduce. The argument that God's existence is most evident in the sense of morality He gave us makes little sense to me. We have intelligence. Along with intelligence comes things like the discussion of morality, where it came from, what it is, and so on. If we weren't so goddamned intelligent and so goddamned moral as a species, we would not exist to ask those questions. It is our intelligence and our common sense of morality that allowed us to thrive as we have. The insistence that God is the reason for that intelligence is no stronger than the insistence that God is the reason for anything and everything.

I am not trying to say; morality exist = God per seI would argue the best proof of God's existance is in the world around us. The thing that scientist like Einstein said points to God, universal truths and purpose in everything around us from the electron to the spinning universe.This thread is trying to argue that a moral code could not have evolved along side humans. A while back crow said that Hitchens figured out that morality evolved. I looked into Hitchens side and other's arguments and I found Hitchens to be a typical strawman arguing atheist who spends half his time mistating my side of the issue so that he can tear it down with an arrogant flair. This is a typical trait of many popular atheist authors, and from some of their followers. First post in this thread was explaining why I was wrong to imply that since the logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism, then all actions are of equal value, so raping a child was the same as eating an ice cream cone. Surprise surprise, he was right that that is a bad conclusion. Never noticed that that wasn't my point. But he was very excited to prove me wrong about the point I never made.vb and I touched on some of his work in Vegas and I told him I thought this would be an interesting discussion, where morality came from.I would argue that pure darwinian evolution of man theory would counter morality, survival of the fittest has no room for compassion. So how could anyone who holds to darwinian evolution believe that morality evolved in such a short period of time? And since we can't dig up any early examples to prove either side, we are forced to look at this from the information at hand.

The fact that without our morality we would not survive simply points to the fact that our species necessarily evolved with a sense of morality. If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here. We did, so we are. If you want to give God credit for that then that's fine, but I don't see why that's a stronger argument than God doing anything else. Like, this thread could be "the existence of livers," expounding the virtues and necessity of the human liver, and how without this piece of miraculous wonder we would not be able to survive in these bodies. So, why is morality a stronger example?

Why would you say that without morality we would not survive? Don't we have many examples of primitive tribes in New Guinea etc that have morals so foriegn to us that we consider them savages? Eating people, killing other tribes to enter into manhood etc.? They've survived for a pretty long time.I would hold we could survive without any morality. Life would be less fullfilling, like communist Russia, but it would still continue. You can't really say that since A = B then C until you first prove A=B. How can you prove that without morality we would not survive?

[vbnautilus 48]

Apes show cooperation, compassion, and even a sense of fairness (e.g. they are more likely to punish another ape that they've seen act unfairly). Clearly they don't have a bible, so doesn't that prove that at least some of the things we consider morality are naturally occurring and not a product of religion?

[crowTrobot 2]

A while back crow said that Hitchens figured out that morality evolved.

i think he believes modern morality evolved via some form of social selection/social darwinism, but i wouldn't say he "figured out" anything. he's a journalist and political activist, not a scientist.

I looked into Hitchens side and other's arguments and I found Hitchens to be a typical strawman arguing atheist who spends half his time mistating my side of the issue so that he can tear it down with an arrogant flair.

what specifically does he say that mistates your position?

I would argue that pure darwinian evolution of man theory would counter morality

i've never heard anyone say modern human morality is strictly a matter of genetics. speaking of straw men.

[vbnautilus 48]

Why would you say that without morality we would not survive? Don't we have many examples of primitive tribes in New Guinea etc that have morals so foriegn to us that we consider them savages? Eating people, killing other tribes to enter into manhood etc.? They've survived for a pretty long time.

There is no such tribe without a morality. Some of their morals are different from ours, but I actually think most are probably the same. A lot of the things that seem so "savage" are exaggerations and misunderstandings by western explorers.

[Balloon guy 158]

Apes show cooperation, compassion, and even a sense of fairness (e.g. they are more likely to punish another ape that they've seen act unfairly). Clearly they don't have a bible, so doesn't that prove that at least some of the things we consider morality are naturally occurring and not a product of religion?

Part of me thinks this direction is fruitless.You can show examples of a 'moralness' in an animal's behaviour.I can show examples of the same animal with actions that make the motive for their actions more pavlovian than thoughtful.Since we can't really ask an ape...do we really gain anything by going in this direction?

[Balloon guy 158]

There is no such tribe without a morality. Some of their morals are different from ours, but I actually think most are probably the same. A lot of the things that seem so "savage" are exaggerations and misunderstandings by western explorers.

Maybe not a truly ammoral tribe, but with morals very foreign to ours. Tim's point that we couldn't survive without morals was the only thing I was trying to refute. Not make the case that there exists a clan of vulcans in the jungle.

[Balloon guy 158]

i think he believes modern morality evolved via some form of social selection/social darwinism, but i wouldn't say he "figured out" anything. he's a journalist and political activist, not a scientist.

This is what he said:Quo warranto is a very ancient question, meaning “by what right?” Youask me for my “warrant” for a code of right conduct and persist in mistakingmy answer for an evasion. I in turn ask you by what right you assumethat a celestial autocracy is a guarantee of morals, let alone by what rightyou choose your own (Christian) version of it as the only correct one. Alldeities have been hailed by their subjects as the fount of good behavior,just as they have been used as the excuse for inexcusable behavior. My answeris the same as it was all along: Our morality evolved.

what specifically does he say that mistates your position?

Hitchens tried to make the case that the four Gospels are completely in disagreement about all major issues. He quotes a guy named Ehrman to do this. Erman disagrees with him as do all scholars who have looked at the issue with a modicum of efort. In fact most agree that thirty-three key facts are in accord in all 4 Gospels This was answered hundreds of times for centuries. Only a person who tries to not find the explanations could achieve this goal and try to claim journalistic credentialsThen he says that all four Gospels are supposed to be based on Q, which is not true, only Matthew and Luke are supposed to be.Jesus was not the only one to mention Hell. Paul, Peter, Jude, and John did as well.Jesus did not invent the concept of Hell. It is mentioned in earlier Jewish writings.No one was killed over the debate regarding which of the Gospels should be considered divinely inspired. Hitchens writesthat “many a life was horribly lost.”He also has the nerve to make the case that charity and relief work are “the inheritors of modernism and theEnlightenment,”Anyone with half a brain would be able to see that Christians dominate in relief and charity work around the world.These are a very few.

i've never heard anyone say modern human morality is strictly a matter of genetics. speaking of straw men.

Neither did I. Is that a straw straw man?

[BaseJester 1]

Part of me thinks this direction is fruitless.You can show examples of a 'moralness' in an animal's behaviour.I can show examples of the same animal with actions that make the motive for their actions more pavlovian than thoughtful.Since we can't really ask an ape...do we really gain anything by going in this direction?

You're attacking a straw man. No one asserted that ethics is the only motivation for animals.

[vbnautilus 48]

I can show examples of the same animal with actions that make the motive for their actions more pavlovian than thoughtful.

I don't really understand the distinction. Let me elaborate to make it more clear. Here's a recent experiment with chimps. You have a pair of them in cages next to each other and they are trained to give up a rock they have for a small reward - a piece of cucumber. They do this and they also see their partner doing it. In some cases, their partner gets a bigger reward for doing the same thing (hey, unfair!). When that happens, the chimp who received the unfair reward stops trading the rock with the experimenter and begins various protest behaviors. (Note how amazing this is because they are giving up a small reward just to protest the unfairness. Interestingly, the degree to which they tolerate unfairness changes with how well they know the other chimp. If their partner is from their close-knit group, they don't mind the unfairness as much. You may not consider this "morality", but the experiment shows that the monkeys are keeping track equity and adjusting their behavior accordingly. As I wrote above fairness is one of the five moral categories, and apparently we didn't invent it. It's born out of the needs of living in a social situation. Since we share some social structure with these animals we also share some of the "rules".

[crowTrobot 2]

Hitchens tried to make the case that the four Gospels are completely in disagreement about all major issues. He quotes a guy named Ehrman to do this. Erman disagrees with him as do all scholars who have looked at the issue with a modicum of efort. In fact most agree that thirty-three key facts are in accord in all 4 Gospels This was answered hundreds of times for centuries. Only a person who tries to not find the explanations could achieve this goal and try to claim journalistic credentialsThen he says that all four Gospels are supposed to be based on Q, which is not true, only Matthew and Luke are supposed to be.Jesus was not the only one to mention Hell. Paul, Peter, Jude, and John did as well.Jesus did not invent the concept of Hell. It is mentioned in earlier Jewish writings.No one was killed over the debate regarding which of the Gospels should be considered divinely inspired. Hitchens writesthat “many a life was horribly lost.”He also has the nerve to make the case that charity and relief work are “the inheritors of modernism and theEnlightenment,”Anyone with half a brain would be able to see that Christians dominate in relief and charity work around the world.

err.. so you don't think the gospels are in agreement about major issues? you think matthew and luke were copied from Q? (etc) obviously those are most or all just things you think are wrong, not arguments against misstated christian positions.

Neither did I.

you've spent a lot of time in this thread arguing that modern human morality couldn't have come from "pure darwinian evolution" or "survival of the fittest" (via genetics), which is a straw man.

[KramitDaToad 0]

This is where BG wraps up eugenics and trys to sell it as evolution.

Evolutionary survival of the fittest says I should get the best mate and procreate. If someone weaker has a prime female, a superior male should take her from him and procreate for the betterment of the species.Morality tells us that this is wrong.They didn't both evolve side by side as some atheist try to claim.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Catchy.StupidBut catchy."..doing what is RIGHT no matter what you are told" Sounds like you have a code of what is right and wrong. Care to share it's origin since that is what this subject is about?

It's origin? Empathy.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Also, we should just deal with the big elephant in the room: most rapes murders and child molestations in this country are committed by christians.

But at a much, much greater percentage of the time by atheist. Who make up such a tiny percentage of the populationSo you are saying that with a massive number of people, there are a lot of scumbags..unless they are atheist, then you don't need as many people to find the scumbags

Actually this is wrong. All studies on the subject show that athiests commit crime at a much lower rate than theists. Much lower.The also get divorced at a lower rate and have higher IQ'sAll round much nicer people us athiests.