The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ed1wolf]

But nuclear physics is necessary for nuclear bombs to work. As well as radiation poisoning. Either way you're taking the description of a natural phenomenon and acting like it's meant to be a guideline for behavior. It's like saying that it's wrong to make airplanes because they allow us to circumvent the gravity which keeps us on the ground.

No, you are missing my point, my point is that atheists are inconsistent about death. Especially human death. They act like death is a bad thing but if atheistic evolution is true, then death is actually a good thing because without it evolution would not occur and we as humans and whatever we evolve into would not exist. So death is part of the engine of evolution.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This has never been demonstrated in any logical way.

Yes, it has, in fact, IIRC I believe I demonstrated it earlier in this thread.

 

[quatona]

No, you are missing my point, my point is that atheists are inconsistent about death. Especially human death. They act like death is a bad thing but if atheistic evolution is true, then death is actually a good thing because without it evolution would not occur and we as humans and whatever we evolve into would not exist. So death is part of the engine of evolution.

The acknowledgement of a natural force existing in no way requires you to evaluate it or its conditions in terms of "good/bad". That rather seems to be a projection of the religious mind (with its belief in an intentional creator) on a scientific finding. To science evolution isn´t a good or bad thing, it just is.

On a completely different note, it would be lazy thinking to assume that "X is good/necessary for Y" requires X to be "good" in every way, in order to maintain consistency. I can easily distinguish between the "good" taste of sweets and the potentially "bad" effect it has on my health.
This gets even more apparent when it comes to a concept like "death" which has a broad variety of situational meanings. E.g. even if considering death as a general phenomenon to be good and necessary (because e.g. without it there´d soon be overpopulation) I do not have to like the fact that I (or someone I like) is about to die. So when you say "they act like death is a bad thing" you would have to explain where and how you made that observation, and you would have to do the same with "death is a good thing" - in order to show that "death", "bad" and "good" are used in the same way in both cases. Or else you haven´t shown inconsistency.

On a final note, I haven´t seen you substantiating that death is necessary for evolution to occur. Could you point me to where you did that?

 

[quatona]

Yes, it has, in fact, IIRC I believe I demonstrated it earlier in this thread.

Could you please double check that and provide a link? Because "IIRC I believe I did..." isn´t really compelling me to also believe that you did/tried, and neither does it convince me that - in case you actually tried - your demonstration was solid. Particularly not when I have just read #1081 with its multiple logical problems.

 

[Strathos]

No, you are missing my point, my point is that atheists are inconsistent about death. Especially human death. They act like death is a bad thing but if atheistic evolution is true, then death is actually a good thing because without it evolution would not occur and we as humans and whatever we evolve into would not exist. So death is part of the engine of evolution.

Nuclear fusion is required for the sun to shine, which was we need to survive. Therefore anyone who believes that the sun runs on nuclear fusion must think that H-bombs are a good thing. That's the same logic you're using. It makes no sense to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In much of our evolutionary history, people died earlier that the age of natural shut down. Due to disease etc, rather than innate longevity limits. We are not "pre-programmed to die", afaik. The authority I got this opinion from was a little lecture by Aubrey de Grey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

 

[RDKirk]

We are not "pre-programmed to die", afaik.

My prostate disputes that. Death from prostate cancer appears to be inevitable if a man isn't killed by something else first.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

My prostate disputes that. Death from prostate cancer appears to be inevitable if a man isn't killed by something else first.

Cancer is due to copying errors in cell reproduction. Its not a developmental stage.

 

[RDKirk]

Cancer is due to copying errors in cell reproduction. Its not a developmental stage.

"Copying errors" is a natural part of growing old. Heck, that is growing old.

Studies indicate that every man will get prostate cancer, if something else doesn't kill him first.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Many zoologists and biologists disagree with them besides me. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/grieving-orca-mother-emotions-animals-mistake

ken: The article doesn't claim they weren't grieving, it just says there is no way of knowing for certain.

Actually he comes pretty close to saying that they are NOT grieving. But yes there is no way of knowing for certain so people especially scientists should not be saying that they are, that is his main point. Therefore you can not make it part of any argument about animals having any kind of morals either.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How can you determine what an animal considers good or bad?

ken: The same way you determine what a person who speaks a foreign language you don't understand considers good or bad.

No, because we can learn the language of a fellow human and just ask them, you cant do that with animals.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Morality also includes justice, and no animal punishes another one for killing a member of its group in order to enforce justice.

ken: Morality doesn’t have to include justice; you can be 100% forgiving and merciful yet still be moral

So if a cop was walking down the street and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, he would be a good moral cop?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Morality is doing something because you OUGHT To do it, there is no evidence animals do things because they ought to do them.

ken: No; morality is doing things you BELIEVE you ought to do. Now show me a study that shows animals do not do what they believe they ought to do.

Animals dont believe anything, their instinct just tells them what to do when they receive certain sensory information and stimuli.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
They do things because their instinct just makes them do it according to the behavior for their particular species.

ken: Provide a study that shows the actions of all animals are limited to their instincts.

Provide a study that shows that they are not.

 

[quatona]

So if a cop was walking down the street and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, he would be a good moral cop?

Well, he would behave the way God does...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually he comes pretty close to saying that they are NOT grieving. But yes there is no way of knowing for certain so people especially scientists should not be saying that they are, that is his main point.

That is just this mans opinion.

Therefore you can not make it part of any argument about animals having any kind of morals either.

I’ve described morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and determine good, bad/right, wrong considering those actions. Anybody who has trained a dog knows dogs know the consequences of actions, and can determine good or bad concerning those consequences of actions so according to how I define morality, animals do have their own morality. What you need to do is to give your description of morality and then show why animals do not have morality.

No, because we can learn the language of a fellow human and just ask them, you cant do that with animals.

You gotta learn his language? My dog knows when I’m happy, worried, sad, or mad, and he doesn’t speak my language! C’mon you’ve gotta be better than that! If you aren’t I can assure you; the rest of us are.

So if a cop was walking down the street and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, he would be a good moral cop?

If God looked down from Heaven and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, would he be a good and moral God?

Animals dont believe anything, their instinct just tells them what to do when they receive certain sensory information and stimuli.

If that were true, we wouldn’t be able to train them to do what we want them to do.

Provide a study that shows that they are not.

We train animals to exhibit behaviors that are beyond, and even goes against their instincts.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes, it has, in fact, IIRC I believe I demonstrated it earlier in this thread.

Your belief isn't reality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nuclear fusion is required for the sun to shine, which was we need to survive. Therefore anyone who believes that the sun runs on nuclear fusion must think that H-bombs are a good thing. That's the same logic you're using. It makes no sense to me.

That's because it's nonsensical...

 

[Ed1wolf]

But nuclear physics is necessary for nuclear bombs to work. As well as radiation poisoning. Either way you're taking the description of a natural phenomenon and acting like it's meant to be a guideline for behavior. It's like saying that it's wrong to make airplanes because they allow us to circumvent the gravity which keeps us on the ground.

Exactly. Since circumventing gravity in that case is a good thing because it helps us travel faster so also for atheists, death is a good thing because it gets us to evolve and improve. But they still act like it is a bad thing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It does of course also require life to progress. I have explained this many times, how long does it take for you to understand?

ken: No; this is the first time you admitted evolution requires life. I have been making the case that evolution requires life and you have been fighting me on it claiming it only requires death. Now you are trying to change the goal posts and claim it was your original position

No, there was no need to admit that it requires life because that is the whole purpose of evolution, to produce life forms. I thought you knew that was a given!

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course Christians think it is a bad thing. But if evolution is true then death brings about more evolution so it should be a good thing.

ken: To recognize Evolution happens does not mean you think more evolution is a good thing.

You are unusual most atheists want evolution to continue. Why do you want it stop?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
My point is that atheistic evolutionists have contradictory beliefs.

ken: Now that I've shown you the error of your way of thinking, care to change your mind on the issue?

Dont you mean that I have shown the error of YOUR ways? What error have I made?

 

[Strathos]

Exactly. Since circumventing gravity in that case is a good thing because it helps us travel faster so also for atheists, death is a good thing because it gets us to evolve and improve. But they still act like it is a bad thing.

You totally missed the point of the analogy...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Copying errors" is a natural part of growing old. Heck, that is growing old.

Studies indicate that every man will get prostate cancer, if something else doesn't kill him first.

But its not programmed into us, copying errors are errors.

 

[RDKirk]

But its not programmed into us, copying errors are errors.

If every copy of a program eventually fails from the same fault, that's not a "copying error," that's a programming "feature."