Origin of God's Morality.

[civilwarbuff]

If you're ignorant on the evolution of social groups and social morality, then do something about it.

So basically you have no reply except to call someone ignorant....how like an atheist....

 

[civilwarbuff]

I've read "Mere Christianity" several times in my younger years. Lewis was wrong.
Morals are developed over time within social groups as humans evolved. This is not even debatable.

Then why are you debating it?....oh, that's right, because the rest of us are ignorant, right?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So it sounds like our social group considers murder to be immoral. It's why we have laws.

So, it is OUR social group pitted against THEIR social group? Wonder who will win out?

 

[HitchSlap]

So basically you have no reply except to call someone ignorant....how like an atheist....

Either you're unaware what sociologists mean when they describe the evolution of social groups, or you're intentionally obfuscating. In either case, I don't have time to re-mediate you. I extended courtesy towards you by assuming you knew what you were talking about.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, it is OUR social group pitted against THEIR social group? Wonder who will win out?

Your understanding of social group is flawed. GIGO.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Your understanding of social group is flawed. GIGO.

Your understanding of living with social groups is flawed.....

 

[aiki]

I've read "Mere Christianity" several times in my younger years. Lewis was wrong.
Morals are developed over time within social groups as humans evolved. This is not even debatable.

Do you really think stating yourself so unequivocally is persuasive? Simply saying "Lewis was wrong" does not even begin to constitute a good argument against his views. And trying to shut down discussion before it begins by saying, "This is not even debatable" is the tactic of someone, in my experience, who is not confident in their point of view. It is the insecure bully who tries to cow others with his aggression and bluster.

Selah.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you really think stating yourself so unequivocally is persuasive? Simply saying "Lewis was wrong" does not even begin to constitute a good argument against his views. And trying to shut down discussion before it begins by saying, "This is not even debatable" is the tactic of someone, in my experience, who is not confident in their point of view. It is the insecure bully who tries to cow others with his aggression and bluster.

Selah.

But that is the argument of all atheists...You're wrong which means they must be right....

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you really think stating yourself so unequivocally is persuasive? Simply saying "Lewis was wrong" does not even begin to constitute a good argument against his views. And trying to shut down discussion before it begins by saying, "This is not even debatable" is the tactic of someone, in my experience, who is not confident in their point of view. It is the insecure bully who tries to cow others with his aggression and bluster.

Selah.

And your suggestion to read an entire book, was what, exactly?
If you have a point, make it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your understanding of living with social groups is flawed.....

Feel free to turn current sociological anthropology on it's head.

 

[HitchSlap]

But that is the argument of all atheists...You're wrong which means they must be right....

This is a stupid thing to say.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your understanding of social group is flawed. GIGO.

A social group consists of two or more people who interact with one another and who recognize themselves as a distinct social unit. The definition is simple enough, but it has significant implications. Frequent interaction leads people to share values and beliefs. This similarity and the interaction cause them to identify with one another. Identification and attachment, in turn, stimulate more frequent and intense interaction. Each group maintains solidarity with all to other groups and other types of social systems.

Groups are among the most stable and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group. These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to political parties.

http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Social-Groups.php
It seems that the basic concepts taught here are that this group would be a social group.

 

[HitchSlap]

A social group consists of two or more people who interact with one another and who recognize themselves as a distinct social unit. The definition is simple enough, but it has significant implications. Frequent interaction leads people to share values and beliefs. This similarity and the interaction cause them to identify with one another. Identification and attachment, in turn, stimulate more frequent and intense interaction. Each group maintains solidarity with all to other groups and other types of social systems.

Groups are among the most stable and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group. These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to political parties.

http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Social-Groups.php
It seems that the basic concepts taught here are that this group would be a social group.

Then why are they on trial for murder?

 

[aiki]

And your suggestion to read an entire book, was what, exactly?
If you have a point, make it.

I have made no more or less a response than your remarks warranted. You've made flat, unfounded assertions. I pointed this out. Have you more to say?

Selah.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why are they on trial for murder?

Their social group believes it is ok to take another's life for some purpose they feel is right.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is a stupid thing to say.

But you can't dispute it....other than to say it is stupid.....

 

[anonymous person]

Is it in principle, possible to adjudicate between two opposing social groups HitchSlap?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then why is it still being debated by Philosophers still today?

The point in question isn't debated any longer though. Morals are tied to social life.

 

[HitchSlap]

But you can't dispute it....other than to say it is stupid.....

I don't have time dispute every stupid comment posted. If you tend to see things in black and white, and use a broad brush to color your perceptions of reality, then there's not much use in correcting you any way, is there?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is it in principle, possible to adjudicate between two opposing social groups HitchSlap?

Of course.