Jester:
From VM:
<<<Nothing you have said has done anything but back my claim up. >>>>
You are supposed to be backing up your own claim. Can you do that? Will you?
I already backed up my claims. See my second post. I don't see how objective morals can exist apart from God. If humanity is changing, and evolution is the result of these morals, then it stands to reason that these morals would also change, and thus not be objective.
From VM:
<<<And if we all evoloved these morals to be inbred into our genetics as if it were instince, then why is there so much immorality? >>>
Man has the intelligence to overcome his base instincts. Which is why there is a lot less rape and murder than there would be if we didn't. (note: not trying to make light of rape or murder, just pointing out that man can control his urges.)
That goes to support my opinion that morals are not part of instinct. Quite the opposite really. Immorality is part of instinct is what you seem to be saying.
From VM:
<<<Rape is an advantage to population. >>>
But a disadvantage to society.
Ah, but to which socitety? Also, who's to say that you couldn't build a society with rape in it and have it not work? Spartan Empire anyone?
Freodin:
VeraciousMaven : Ok, so YOUR whole argument stops here, because, as I have shown, objective morals can quite well exist without God.
OBJECTIVE morals do by definition not need a sucject to evaluate them to exist.
You might say that God is the only one who is able to evaluate these objective morals, but they would still EXIST without him.
Because absolute morals cannot exist apart from God, I'd say that you're basically comparing the morals to the morals and telling me that because the morals are subjected to the interpretation of the morals then they are subjective. I don't buy it.
Dave:
quote:
I don't see how that is objective. The morals are still being definied for the set group that it works for. And if we all evoloved these morals to be inbred into our genetics as if it were instince, then why is there so much immorality?
Perhaps we are still evolving. Antelopes evolved to escape lions, right? But some antelopes are still sometimes caught by lions. The complexity of the world also may confuse man's inate instincts.
If we are evolving, then the morals are changing. They arn't objective are they?
quote:
Rape is an advantage to population.
No it isn't, at least not in our species. Go read the book "Sperm Wars" and get back to me when you've learned about the birds and the bees.
Well, I'm not going to read the book just yet so you'll have to tell me what it says to make your point.
quote:
If it's in our instinct at all, then people would be very hesitant indeed to lie or steal ... but this isn't the case at all.
I think you'll find that very few people lie or steal unless they percieve this is necessary for their survival.
I find that to be completely untrue. I don't know where you're from in the world/country, but where I am, people steal anything they can get away with. Why not after all?
I don't know about your Church, but mine teaches that there is nothing wrong with stealing food or clothing or shelter when it is needed and ones lacks legitimate means to obtain them.
Agreed.
People are basically good, it's mostly an issue of their perceptions being clouded about what is right and what is wrong and what they must do to survive which causes them to sin. The imbalance in their perceptions is brought about by elements of civilization which their instincts have difficulty dealing with because civilization is such a new thing. Money for example, causes all sorts of confusion.
I'm not sure where you're going with this ... if humanity was good by nature then your "church" is useless. Also, if humanity was good by nature, his nature would have derived even greater goodness instead of corruption. Humanism doesn't work in practical terms.
quote:
Marriage.
Marriage goes against the instinct to survive? I don't see how.
I don't see how it helps any. You're stuck with one wife. Less breeding.
quote:
Also seeing someone else in trouble, and helping them despite the fact that you may die as well.
As I already explained, it is always better for the species that its member help eachother. So that works in favor of the genome, not against it.
You're telling me that if a tiger was stuck in a building, and some other tiger that had never even seen it before was outside, the tiger would run in there and rescue it? Unlikely.
quote:
If man made all moral laws, then why are moral laws impossible to follow?
Moral laws aren't impossible to follow. As I said, people's instincts are just confused so it is difficult for them to figure out right from wrong in the current situation. That's where, I concede, God's help comes in handy, like in Jesus explaining what is right and what is wrong, etc. Btu that is a different argument.
That's strange. You think that God exists, but He didn't invent absolute morals? We evolved aboslute morals, which are instinct (somehow), and God played no part in it?
No it isn't. Abandoning them might be a good idea, and I'm not sure how that would be immoral if you have no means to help them become well. But killing them would just be a waste of effort.
But we don't do either. In fact, we carry their dead bodies back with us. How instinctive is THAT?