If God asks....

[brightlights]

Morality 2: Not-so-good books - YouTube

Very well made video. Well written and challenging perspective. I see things from a very different perspective but I can appreciate and understand what's being said.

 

[Elioenai26]

Animals are animals. What you all are now espousing is specieism. Homosapiens are cousins to primates. Look at the colorful charts and graphs and diagrams in highschool textbooks. We evolved ok? Evolution is not concerned about whether or not some imaginary God concept did or did not order the killing of a certain group of animals.

So why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey? Evolution is not concerned with objective morality, but survival and reproduction. Therefore any concept you may posit regarding morality must be seen in light of sociobiological evolution. As simply an aid to survival.

 

[Gadarene]

Animals are animals. What you all are now espousing is specieism. Homosapiens are cousins to primates. Look at the colorful charts and graphs and diagrams in highschool textbooks. We evolved ok? Evolution is not concerned about whether or not some imaginary God concept did or did not order the killing of a certain group of animals.

So why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey? Evolution is not concerned with objective morality, but survival and reproduction. Therefore any concept you may posit regarding morality must be seen in light of sociobiological evolution. As simply an aid to survival.

Again, you really aren't even attempting to listen, are you?

And you're evading the topic of this thread. The topic is not our moral standards, but yours. Actually got anything to present, apologist?

 

[Elioenai26]

Again, you really aren't even attempting to listen, are you?

And you're evading the topic of this thread. The topic is not our moral standards, but yours. Actually got anything to present, apologist?

Of course!

My whole argument is that you don't have any good reason to talk about morality because according to you, there are no objective moral values, and morality as we know it is nothing more than an aid to our survival and reproduction. Right and wrong are no more than what is conducive or not conducive to the propagation of our species.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I reject your question because of______(insert ad hominem).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Animals are animals. What you all are now espousing is specieism. Homosapiens are cousins to primates. Look at the colorful charts and graphs and diagrams in highschool textbooks. We evolved ok? Evolution is not concerned about whether or not some imaginary God concept did or did not order the killing of a certain group of animals.

So why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey? Evolution is not concerned with objective morality, but survival and reproduction. Therefore any concept you may posit regarding morality must be seen in light of sociobiological evolution. As simply an aid to survival.

Of course!

My whole argument is that you don't have any good reason to talk about morality because according to you, there are no objective moral values, and morality as we know it is nothing more than an aid to our survival and reproduction. Right and wrong are no more than what is conducive or not conducive to the propagation of our species.

For the third or fourth time... you are confusing one of the reasons why moral systems might be advantageous with those moral systems themselves. Yes, we, like all animals, evolved. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

 

[Gadarene]

Of course!

My whole argument is that you don't have any good reason to talk about morality because according to you, there are no objective moral values, and morality as we know it is nothing more than an aid to our survival and reproduction. Right and wrong are no more than what is conducive or not conducive to the propagation of our species.

Strawman - as ever. My evolutionary argument for morals is not that. Recall the 9th commandment, Eliarnai.

And this is a rather pathetic evasion, here is your perfect opportunity to convince us of a good reason to talk about morals, if you really believe we have no good reason to - this topic for us is a bit of a clincher when it comes to the credibility of someone claiming their particular deity supports objective moral values.

But again, if you want to maintain your usual standards of incompetence, keep ducking and dodging.

 

[Elioenai26]

Strawman - as ever. My evolutionary argument for morals is not that. Recall the 9th commandment, Eliarnai.

And this is a rather pathetic evasion, here is your perfect opportunity to convince us of a good reason to talk about morals, if you really believe we have no good reason to - this topic for us is a bit of a clincher when it comes to the credibility of someone claiming their particular deity supports objective moral values.

But again, if you want to maintain your usual standards of incompetence, keep ducking and dodging.

I am familiar with the various evolutionary arguments for morality. They all fail to provide a justifiable basis for objective moral values and duties. Since they fail in this critical area, all you are left with is moral relativism. And of course this leaves you with nothing more than your subjective opinions about the Judeo Christian God. And personally, we all have opinions.

 

[Gadarene]

I am familiar with the various evolutionary arguments for morality. They all fail to provide a justifiable basis for objective moral values and duties. Since they fail in this critical area, all you are left with is moral relativism. And of course this leaves you with nothing more than your subjective opinions about the Judeo Christian God. And personally, we all have opinions.

Which you'd think would give you pause about your opinion that your god is a basis for objective moral values.

You have not addressed multiple aspects of the evolutionary arguments for the origins of common morals in these threads, so your assertion is rejected.

You can start by actually listening to what your opponents' arguments are and not lying and strawmanning.

And lest we forget, you are still off topic. Stop dodging.

 

[Skavau]

Animals are not moral or ethical creatures. According to you, we are just cousins of our primate relatives and primates don't murder each other. So you have no justifiable basis for asking about what is wrong or right.

I've addressed this kind of argument in your "objective morality" thread. Take it there. This as I keep repeating to you is a question to you and about your values, not mine. You asked for this thread to be made and I made it and now you refuse to answer.

Your evasion would be pathetic if it wasn't downright comical.

 

[Skavau]

Animals are animals. What you all are now espousing is specieism. Homosapiens are cousins to primates. Look at the colorful charts and graphs and diagrams in highschool textbooks. We evolved ok? Evolution is not concerned about whether or not some imaginary God concept did or did not order the killing of a certain group of animals.

Who gives a smeg?

Your rambling on evolution hasn't to anything to do with the topic.

So why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey?

I've got a prudent question

Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour
.

Evolution is not concerned with objective morality, but survival and reproduction. Therefore any concept you may posit regarding morality must be seen in light of sociobiological evolution. As simply an aid to survival.

We do not derive our morality from the biological theory of evolution. Evolution explains how some of it developed but it does not decree what we ought or ought not. Your presumption that it does is a projection of your own slave-master pseudo-morality. You operate from obedience to authority and presume that we do similarly just with something else. First you assumed consensus and now you're assuming social darwinism.

 

[Elioenai26]

For the third or fourth time... you are confusing one of the reasons why moral systems might be advantageous with those moral systems themselves. Yes, we, like all animals, evolved. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

The only difference between homosapiens and fish is that they are a different species.

Fish don't have moral systems....at least not that I know of. Our concept of morality, under naturalism, is ultimately illusory in nature. In other words, it refers to nothing beyond us, but simply to what is or is not conducive to survival and reproduction. So when atheists ask me if I think God was wrong in doing so and so, what they really mean to say is: was this imaginary God concept doing something that was not conducive to survival and reproduction of homosapiens? When taken this way, the whole question appears to me to be nonsensical. What they should ask rather, is: were the homosapien authors acting in accordance to what their evolved traits led them to write when writing about the imaginary and illusory precepts of their imaginary and illusory God concept. The answer is yes, because they were simply dancing to their DNA.

 

[Skavau]

The only difference between homosapiens and fish is that they are a different species.

Plus our sentience, our capacity for vast wealth of knowledge and the specific and expansive physical differences between us and fish.

Fish don't have moral systems....at least not that I know of. Our concept of morality, under naturalism, is ultimately illusory in nature. In other words, it refers to nothing beyond us, but simply to what is or is not conducive to survival and reproduction.

Survival and reproduction are not the sole concerns regarding morality. You insisting they are is yet more dishonesty. You are desperate to the point of comedy to pin us all down as following without hesitation a set of arbitrary principles. You tried to insist in your objective morality thread that we all operate by consensus, you were wrong. You are now peddling the long convicted falsehood that we all operate by some kind of social darwinism. You are, again, wrong. Morality has advanced far, far beyond concerns of reproduction and survival. They are important, but not at the expense of personal liberty and quality of life to just name two.

So when atheists ask me if I think God was wrong in doing so and so, what they really mean to say is: was this imaginary God concept doing something that was not conducive to survival and reproduction of homosapiens?

Stop lying.

No-one has said that. You are lying. You keep lying. Why do you keep constantly lying? Here's a question relevant to the original post.

If God was to deceive, to misinform someone would it be moral?

Can you answer that? Will you answer that? I'm not asking you to answer based on my moral values and understanding I'm asking you to answer based on your values.

When taken this way, the whole question appears to me to be nonsensical.

Well, it would be considering that it is a strawquestion. No-one has actually asked it.

 

[Elioenai26]

Who gives a smeg?

Your rambling on evolution hasn't to anything to do with the topic.

I've got a prudent question

Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour
.
We do not derive our morality from the biological theory of evolution. Evolution explains how some of it developed but it does not decree what we ought or ought not. Your presumption that it does is a projection of your own slave-master pseudo-morality. You operate from obedience to authority and presume that we do similarly just with something else. First you assumed consensus and now you're assuming social darwinism.

Needless to say, your view is the minority. But tell me, where do we derive our morality from?

 

[Paradoxum]

Animals are animals. What you all are now espousing is specieism. Homosapiens are cousins to primates. Look at the colorful charts and graphs and diagrams in highschool textbooks. We evolved ok? Evolution is not concerned about whether or not some imaginary God concept did or did not order the killing of a certain group of animals.

Because evolution is a biological process. You might as well be saying that respiration isn't concerned over God kill animals. You wouldn't expect it to have any concerns. It is just a process.

So why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey? Evolution is not concerned with objective morality, but survival and reproduction. Therefore any concept you may posit regarding morality must be seen in light of sociobiological evolution. As simply an aid to survival.

That doesn't follow. We all know evolution is only concerned with survival and reproduction, but that doesn't mean capacities that evolve don't have anything more to them. The concept of mathematics is more than some random ability that aids survival though. 1+1=2 is actually true, not just some random thing evolution made up.

Something evolving doesn't mean that it is simply/merely an aid to survival, and nothing more.

 

[Skavau]

Needless to say, your view is the minority. But tell me, where do we derive our morality from?

Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour.

 

[Elioenai26]

Plus our sentience, our capacity for vast wealth of knowledge and the specific and expansive physical differences between us and fish.

Survival and reproduction are not the sole concerns regarding morality. You insisting they are is yet more dishonesty. You are desperate to the point of comedy to pin us all down as following without hesitation a set of arbitrary principles. You tried to insist in your objective morality thread that we all operate by consensus, you were wrong. You are now peddling the long convicted falsehood that we all operate by some kind of social darwinism. You are, again, wrong. Morality has advanced far, far beyond concerns of reproduction and survival. They are important, but not at the expense of personal liberty and quality of life to just name two.

Stop lying.

No-one has said that. You are lying. You keep lying. Why do you keep constantly lying? Here's a question relevant to the original post.

If God was to deceive, to misinform someone would it be moral?

Can you answer that? Will you answer that? I'm not asking you to answer based on my moral values and understanding I'm asking you to answer based on your values.

Well, it would be considering that it is a strawquestion. No-one has actually asked it.

For an anti-theist, you sure do talk about God a lot! In fact, you talk about this being you disbelieve in and despise more than a lot of people who do believe in His existence.

The irony is staggering.

Why again are you so concerned about this God you believe is nothing more than a superstitious figment of ignorant men's imaginations?

What you're doing is akin to me sitting around all day dreaming of arguments against the contemptible flying spaghetti monster.

Vanity no doubt.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?

After all, you refuse to return the favour.

You shouldnt, according to you. So don't.

 

[Elioenai26]

Because evolution is a biological process. You might as well be saying that respiration isn't concerned over God kill animals. You wouldn't expect it to have any concerns. It is just a process.



That doesn't follow. We all know evolution is only concerned with survival and reproduction, but that doesn't mean capacities that evolve don't have anything more to them. The concept of mathematics is more than some random ability that aids survival though. 1+1=2 is actually true, not just some random thing evolution made up.

Something evolving doesn't mean that it is simply/merely an aid to survival, and nothing more.

You will have to plead your case to the contemporary evolutionary ethicists who would disagree with what you are saying.

I also know about Kantian moral theory.

But I would ask you to state clearly your view of the foundation and nature of morality. Thus far you haven't. Are you saying that morality is an abstract concept like mathematics?

 

[Gadarene]

You shouldnt, according to you. So don't.

Mendacious little hypocrite, aren't you, 'apologist'?

Say one thing about the atheists here - they don't evade questions anything like as much as you do, even off topic ones.