Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Who gives a smeg?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.
I've got a prudent questionSo why should any of you? And whose to say we are any better than rats or bacteria or birds of prey?
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.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.
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?
Plus our sentience, our capacity for vast wealth of knowledge and the specific and expansive physical differences between us and fish.The only difference between homosapiens and fish is that they are a different species.
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.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.
Stop lying.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?
Well, it would be considering that it is a strawquestion. No-one has actually asked it.When taken this way, the whole question appears to me to be nonsensical.
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.
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.
Needless to say, your view is the minority. But tell me, where do we derive our morality from?
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.
Why should any of us answer any question by you ever?
After all, you refuse to return the favour.
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 shouldnt, according to you. So don't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?