Where does morality come from?

[Ophiolite]

I provide several peer reviews that religion has an effect on chemical codependency, but many times this means abstinence of alcohol or drugs all together.

Got it. You equate different moral values with higher (or lower) moral values.

Also, you argue, without substantiation, that the purported superior behaviour in regard to chemical dependency extends to all, or the majority of moral matters.

I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is, but is clearly wrong.

I can show where christians drink less alcohol than catholics per a peer review on the study

I've seen you use that phrase before. That clearly implies that Catholics are not Christians and making such statements is against forum rules.

I did provide some, now if you don't mind provide some for your perspective

I believe I told you I couldn't find them and asked you to point me to them. Once I can study them I can properly assess what, if anything, I am arguing against, or for, or have a neutral attitude towards. (I take it you are familiar with the Socratic method.)

biased sample.

Nevertheless they represent the real behaviour, historical and current, of persons and groups self-identifying as Christian, a religion which you blithely assert is morally superior to all others and to any moral code outside of religion.

I am persuaded as to the moral quality of Christianity when Christians not only admit to failings, past and present, but actively seek to correct those failings. There are many fine examples of that on this forum, indeed at least one on this thread. I am much less persuaded by self righteous bombast.

you say you are not here to bash christianity, then why are you here?

The forum in general? I posted something on that a couple of weeks back, but can't locate it now. Very briefly, to discuss science related subjects, correct misunderstandings on those topics in which I have a measure of competence, to learn new things and to improve my casual writing. Also, and this is very important, to expose myself to alternate viewpoints and seek to understand the rationale behind such viewpoints. (And to point out, in cases important to me, why I might hold a contrary view. If you think such instances are "bashing Christianity" then you are not paying attention.)

Have you come to terms with the honesty of that question yet?

I assumed from the outset that you would ask an honest question. Although I am a sceptical sort, I am not predisposed to think members will ask me deliberately misleading questions (though experience has taught me that some do).

So excuse me if I can't use all of my work time answering your questions.

Not a problem. Thank you for taking the time on these.

 

[gaara4158]

In a world where everything is biological, using words like right and wrong, or good and evil, is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Their meaning or relevance would be subjective at worst.

 

[Yttrium]

For me, morals start with self-preservation, and grow outward from there. I don't want to be assaulted or killed. I don't want my stuff stolen. We get together as a society and realize that we all feel like that. We form a consensus. We agree not to kill each other or steal each other's stuff, etc. We write it down as law and enforce the law, because there will always be those who don't go along with the consensus.

From my perspective, morals in the Bible are just more of the same. People had formed a consensus on behavior, and someone wrote the consensus down, and blamed a supreme being for it.

 

[createdtoworship]

There isn’t any single “food chain.” There are multiple different food chains that exist in their respective ecosystems. We’re not on any of them because we have developed agriculture. Without that, we are reduced to scavengers and game hunters, prey of other pack animals and apex predators.

If you think you’re higher than a tiger, fight one.

it appears that there is a single food chain:

The food chain of living things | The Visual Dictionary

 

[gaara4158]

it appears that there is a single food chain:

The food chain of living things | The Visual Dictionary

Sure, food chains are made up of separate classes of predators and preys, so in that sense there is one “food chain.” But an apex predator (top of the food chain) is only an apex predator in its natural environment. We are not apex predators outside of our natural environment, just like any other apex predator. A tiger is not at the top of the food chain in the city, and we are not at the top of the food chain in the jungle.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Not necessarily. Their meaning or relevance would be subjective at worst.

Someone who avoids lying because it’s subjectively wrong, or someone who avoids lying because honesty is an objective standard.

Though there are reasons to be honest, and the temptation to lie remains in both instances, my argument is that if there is no standard of honesty besides what a social system implements, then the system is only relevant to itself, rendering its relevance dependent upon its existence. It is relevant because it exists. Nothing more or nothing less.

By this standard, you must give weight to irrelevant ideas and immoral behavior, simply bc they are real as well.

Reasons for morality are far from the reasons why morality exists, and without the objectivity of Gods word, that society, as history shows, will become extremely intolerant and collapse on itself, trying to define its own relevance with subjective values.

This is why you see people who, after killing others, end their own lives. A subjective system will create ideologies that are responsible for people who think they can beat the system by committing suicide after heinous acts of immorality. Easy out? Nay.

The Kingdom of God is at hand, and God is not mocked.

 

[gaara4158]

Someone who avoids lying because it’s subjectively wrong, or someone who avoids lying because honesty is an objective standard.

Though there are reasons to be honest, and the temptation to lie remains in both instances, my argument is that if there is no standard of honesty besides what a social system implements, then the system is only relevant to itself, rendering its relevance dependent upon its existence. It is relevant because it exists. Nothing more or nothing less.

By this standard, you must give weight to irrelevant ideas and immoral behavior, simply bc they are real as well.

Reasons for morality are far from the reasons why morality exists, and without the objectivity of Gods word, that society, as history shows, will become extremely intolerant and collapse on itself, trying to define its own relevance with subjective values.

This is why you see people who, after killing others, end their own lives. A subjective system will create ideologies that are responsible for people who think they can beat the system by committing suicide after heinous acts of immorality. Easy out? Nay.

The Kingdom of God is at hand, and God is not mocked.

Ultimately all moral systems are motivated by the subjective desire for a specific outcome. An objective standard is completely irrelevant if no one cares to follow it.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Ultimately all moral systems are motivated by the subjective desire for a specific outcome. An objective standard is completely irrelevant if no one cares to follow it.

I can’t believe what I’m reading lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Got it. You equate different moral values with higher (or lower) moral values.

Also, you argue, without substantiation, that the purported superior behaviour in regard to chemical dependency extends to all, or the majority of moral matters.

I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is, but is clearly wrong.

you originally said that I didn't have sources for the claim that people rejected christianity because of it's aversion to higher standards, abstinence from alcohol is a higher standard, and I proved that christians are more susceptible to it, via peer review. So is this question answered or not?

I've seen you use that phrase before. That clearly implies that Catholics are not Christians and making such statements is against forum rules.

Well they teach different ways to get to heaven, the catholics as per the catechism have seven sacraments they must perform to be saved, for the protestant christian it is merely faith in christ, so in that manner they are different. Mainly in the gospel message. But a catholic can relate to christianity if they wish, I dont' care.

I believe I told you I couldn't find them and asked you to point me to them. Once I can study them I can properly assess what, if anything, I am arguing against, or for, or have a neutral attitude towards. (I take it you are familiar with the Socratic method.)

all I am saying is that you can pick any one of your beliefs you wish, take your pick. You cannot prove a single fact. Nothing is provable, accept maybe 1/10th of one percent of facts. So your contention that I have not proven my position, is somewhat hypocritical.

Nevertheless they represent the real behaviour, historical and current, of persons and groups self-identifying as Christian, a religion which you blithely assert is morally superior to all others and to any moral code outside of religion.

there are lots of peer reviews about the benefits of religion in the world, forgiveness goes a long way in things such as addictions, and that is why christianity excels at things like victory over addiction, where other religions, even catholicism, will fall behind.

I am persuaded as to the moral quality of Christianity when Christians not only admit to failings, past and present, but actively seek to correct those failings. There are many fine examples of that on this forum, indeed at least one on this thread. I am much less persuaded by self righteous bombast.

I am not here to persuade you, only the readers, the struggling christians coming to the thread. You are not open to christianity at all and you are just here to recruit to atheism. When a christian falls into atheism you find joy and fulfillment in that. As if you have done some honorable thing. But in reality the skeptic has not worth or value in himself, he parasites off of religion for his converts.

Also, and this is very important, to expose myself to alternate viewpoints and seek to understand the rationale behind such viewpoints. (And to point out, in cases important to me, why I might hold a contrary view.

see so you admit, you are not here to learn of be a christian, but so that you may find out how you may hold a contrary view. So my analysis of your motive for being here is accurate.

I assumed from the outset that you would ask an honest question. Although I am a sceptical sort, I am not predisposed to think members will ask me deliberately misleading questions (though experience has taught me that some do).

I am here to help struggling christians, but sometimes it is needed for a christian to really expose the motives of athiests in these threads. If they are not open to the Bible and God, why are they here at all? They are just here to try to convince people to disbelieve. If they are not honest with the true intention of their heart, then they are self deceived.

Not a problem. Thank you for taking the time on these.

thank you for responding to a situation that may not always be the most comfortable for you to discuss, but an honest question non the less. And thank you for being polite for the most part. I do apologize if I act self righteously, I do not intend to. I realize I fail God on a daily basis in most every fashion, and yet God still loves me, thank God. I only hope that you can too find that love that I feel from God, it would change your life.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, food chains are made up of separate classes of predators and preys, so in that sense there is one “food chain.” But an apex predator (top of the food chain) is only an apex predator in its natural environment. We are not apex predators outside of our natural environment, just like any other apex predator. A tiger is not at the top of the food chain in the city, and we are not at the top of the food chain in the jungle.

I never mentioned apex predators, I simply said we are at the top of the food chain, and I provided a link showing that.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

You have spoken like someone who has tried to use a fictional tv show as burden of proof

Do you understand what an analogy is?

I used a fictional TV show to illustrate a concept which you seem to be incapable of understanding. Something can appear God-like without actually being a god. Like the Dragon. But if that's too complicated an idea for you, we can drop it.

 

[Kylie]

macro evolution, an evolution above the level of species, has never been observed.

Speciation has been observed. Observed Instances of Speciation

Have you actually with your eyes seen a monkey evolve into a human?

No, because such changes usually take far longer than a human lifespan. But there are other forms of evidence that show that it happens. We don't need to personally see it happen.

Is there fossils proving lineage to two separate genus? There is none. There are popular missing links but they universally fail. Neanderthal was human like, and lucy was ape like. Go ahead try it out, try to find a missing link in ape/human evolution. You can't. So your silence proves my point.

This is completely wrong. The fossil evidence for evolution is well documented. Can you provide valid scientific sources for the claims you make here?

But what is scary is that people if they found a missing link that happened to work, would be satisfied. Theoretically speaking animal forms should be completely fluid. There should be no lines between any animal types. Because everyone would be evolving theoretically either successfully or unsuccessfully into other things.

Please, learn what evolution actually is, because what you're talking about here appears to be nonsense.

Evolution simply doesn't work as a theory. What we have a distinct animal genuses that reproduce within their kind. Yes they change colors and sizes and such, but they are the same type of animal becuase they can still reproduce and create fertile offspring. As far as I know a humans cannot mate with an apes and create fertile offspring because they have different genuses so even if we did evolve from apes, it would die out in one generation because the evolutionary trait was not beneficial.

You have no idea what evolution is, you have no idea how evolution works. You are exposing your ignorance of evolution with just about every sentence of this post.

 

[gaara4158]

I never mentioned apex predators, I simply said we are at the top of the food chain, and I provided a link showing that.

Apex predators are the same as superpredators, the species at the top of the food chain with no natural predators. It’s in your link. Do you make any effort to understand the material you’re referencing, or do you just search by keyword and post the top result?

In any case, it’s debated whether humans are such a species. But it should be obvious that all the animals of the world are not simply stack-ranked in a linear food chain with humans at the top. It doesn’t work that way.

But if you think you’re higher than a tiger, you’re welcome to venture into the jungle.

I can’t believe what I’m reading lol

When you’re done laughing, you can point out what’s so hard to process.

 

[KyleSpringer]

When you’re done laughing, you can point out what’s so hard to process.

I’m sorry. I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t see why you would say it.

Saying that objective standards are irrelevant because of rebellion is nonsensical.

That’s like saying I shouldn’t get a job because people get fired.

It doesn’t cheapen the standard if you choose living recklessly over obedience, you only cheapen your own experience.

If you ran a marathon, except at the beginning you turned and ran the course in the opposite direction, you may still say you finished the race, but even if you are the first to pass the finish line, you can’t be awarded because you didn’t follow the appropriate path.

Rules are still rules, even if you choose to break them. You may disregard them but they are not irrelevant.

 

[gaara4158]

I’m sorry. I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t see why you would say it.

Saying that objective standards are irrelevant because of rebellion is nonsensical.

That’s like saying I shouldn’t get a job because people get fired.

It doesn’t cheapen the standard if you choose living recklessly over obedience, you only cheapen your own experience.

If you ran a marathon, except at the beginning you turned and ran the course in the opposite direction, you may still say you finished the race, but even if you are the first to pass the finish line, you can’t be awarded because you didn’t follow the appropriate path.

Rules are still rules, even if you choose to break them. You may disregard them but they are not irrelevant.

Rules are only rules because of what happens when you break them. If you don’t care about what happens when you break them, they’re not effective rules.

 

[createdtoworship]

Speciation has been observed. Observed Instances of Speciation

yes I don't disagree. But I was saying evolution at above the level of species, namely at the genus level (the next taxonomical level higher than species), is not existent. This level is important, because apes and humans are different genuses, yet there is not link that can be traceable to both genuses proving evolution occured.

No, because such changes usually take far longer than a human lifespan. But there are other forms of evidence that show that it happens. We don't need to personally see it happen.

so you can't prove it happened. You must rely on other peoples views.

This is completely wrong. The fossil evidence for evolution is well documented. Can you provide valid scientific sources for the claims you make here?

Why should I prove their is not fossil evidence proving evolution? Shouldn't you find one and submit it?

Please, learn what evolution actually is, because what you're talking about here appears to be nonsense.

if things are constantly evolving into other things, there would be transitional forms all over the place, half monkey, half man transitions. Even the modern monkey would still be trying to evolve into modern man, and creating transitional forms. Millions of them everywhere. But you don't see that. You see zero.

You have no idea what evolution is, you have no idea how evolution works. You are exposing your ignorance of evolution with just about every sentence of this post.

and yet you find it difficult to provide one example of evolutionary proof. So, sorry if I don't take your word for it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Speciation has been observed. Observed Instances of Speciation

yes I don't disagree. But



No, because such changes usually take far longer than a human lifespan. But there are other forms of evidence that show that it happens. We don't need to personally see it happen.



This is completely wrong. The fossil evidence for evolution is well documented. Can you provide valid scientific sources for the claims you make here?



Please, learn what evolution actually is, because what you're talking about here appears to be nonsense.



You have no idea what evolution is, you have no idea how evolution works. You are exposing your ignorance of evolution with just about every sentence of this post.

Speciation has been observed. Observed Instances of Speciation



No, because such changes usually take far longer than a human lifespan. But there are other forms of evidence that show that it happens. We don't need to personally see it happen.



This is completely wrong. The fossil evidence for evolution is well documented. Can you provide valid scientific sources for the claims you make here?



Please, learn what evolution actually is, because what you're talking about here appears to be nonsense.



You have no idea what evolution is, you have no idea how evolution works. You are exposing your ignorance of evolution with just about every sentence of this post.

here let me give some more documention on macro evolution, you are defining micro evolution:


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).



“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Error - Cookies Turned Off

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

yes I don't disagree. But I was saying evolution at above the level of species, namely at the genus level (the next taxonomical level higher than species), is not existent. This level is important, because apes and humans are different genuses, yet there is not link that can be traceable to both genuses proving evolution occured.

A change from one species to another doesn't count as evolution at a level above the order of species to you? Well, it sure ain't evolution within a species!

so you can't prove it happened. You must rely on other peoples views.

No, we realy on other forms of evidence.

Why should I prove their is not fossil evidence proving evolution? Shouldn't you find one and submit it?

Because you are the one making the claim that there is no fossil evidence to support evolution. You have claimed there is no fossil evidence, but you provided no support for this claim. You claim that all proposed examples have failed, yet you provide no support for that claim. Any idiot can make any claim they want, but without supporting evidence, a claim by itself is worthless.

if things are constantly evolving into other things, there would be transitional forms all over the place, half monkey, half man transitions. Even the modern monkey would still be trying to evolve into modern man, and creating transitional forms. Millions of them everywhere. But you don't see that. You see zero.

You have no idea how evolution works. Organisms are not striving to reach some goal, they are simply evolving to become well suited for their environment. There is no "best way" to be as well adapted as possible. There are many different ways to be well adapted.

and yet you find it difficult to provide one example of evolutionary proof. So, sorry if I don't take your word for it.

I provided a link to many instances of evolution in the post you are quoting. I post the proof you demand, then you claim I never post it? There's no need to tell lies.

 

[Kylie]

here let me give some more documention on macro evolution, you are defining micro evolution:


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).



“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Error - Cookies Turned Off

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

*sigh*

The processes of macroevolution are exactly the same as the process for microevolution. it's just a matter of time. Let evolution make only a few small changes, it's microevolution. Leave it go for longer, there are more small changes, they all add up and you get macro evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

A change from one species to another doesn't count as evolution at a level above the order of species to you? Well, it sure ain't evolution within a species!

see my other post, it's above the species level. Meaning a higher taxa.

No, we realy on other forms of evidence.

but you can't provide any? Sorry if I am skeptical

Because you are the one making the claim that there is no fossil evidence to support evolution. You have claimed there is no fossil evidence, but you provided no support for this claim. You claim that all proposed examples have failed, yet you provide no support for that claim. Any idiot can make any claim they want, but without supporting evidence, a claim by itself is worthless.

there appears to be no fossil evidence

You have no idea how evolution works. Organisms are not striving to reach some goal, they are simply evolving to become well suited for their environment. There is no "best way" to be as well adapted as possible. There are many different ways to be well adapted.

I can say you don't understand evolution at all either, does that make us even? You seem to belittle when you have no more answers, so I thought I would try it.

I provided a link to many instances of evolution in the post you are quoting. I post the proof you demand, then you claim I never post it? There's no need to tell lies.

speciation from a well known biased site is not evidence, you must provide peer review. Besides I don't disagree with speciation, nor do I disagree with ring species.