Where does morality come from?

[gaara4158]

sorry this is the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. I never made a positive statement that animals were altruistic.

You made the claim that animals were not altruistic. Then you undermined it with examples of pets being altruistic. You’re the one who has to prove that animals are not altruistic, and you can’t do that since you already admitted that there are exceptions and your positive claim is a negative statement. People are only giving you examples to the contrary because it’s so trivial to do so, but your statement fails all on its own. The premise that animals do not display altruistic behavior is at best unsupported and at worst demonstrably false.

sir the logic follows, I won't repeat it as everyone can read that last two times I posted it. But for now, your point fails because you cannot prove animals have sacrifical love.

Don’t call me sir, I work for a living.

In fact, not a single one of your steps follows from the last. Even if we don’t observe altruism in other extant species, it does not follow that altruism could not have been a naturally inherited trait in humans. Even if we determined that it wasn’t, that wouldn’t mean the origin was supernatural. And even if we somehow confirmed the origin was supernatural, that would not logically mean that the source is God.

That’s literally the worst argument I’ve ever seen.

 

[gaara4158]

So then I can do that with theism. you don't believe God exists, so I can reverse the burden of proof to you, so that now you have to prove that God doesn't exist? Lets put it in your words, if you want to prove God doesn't exist, you need to provide evidence that God does not exist. Sounds good until someone reverses it on you right? Yeah, that's why the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof doesn't work by the way.

And that’s why most atheists won’t actually claim there is no god. Because that’s a valid objection.

 

[createdtoworship]

You made the claim that animals were not altruistic. Then you undermined it with examples of pets being altruistic. You’re the one who has to prove that animals are not altruistic, and you can’t do that since you already admitted that there are exceptions and your positive claim is a negative statement. People are only giving you examples to the contrary because it’s so trivial to do so, but your statement fails all on its own. The premise that animals do not display altruistic behavior is at best unsupported and at worst demonstrably false.


Don’t call me sir, I work for a living.

In fact, not a single one of your steps follows from the last. Even if we don’t observe altruism in other extant species, it does not follow that altruism could not have been a naturally inherited trait in humans. Even if we determined that it wasn’t, that wouldn’t mean the origin was supernatural. And even if we somehow confirmed the origin was supernatural, that would not logically mean that the source is God.

That’s literally the worst argument I’ve ever seen.

so like I said, reversing the burden of proof is as follows. I say that self sacrificial love only exists in humans, you say" no it exists in animals" then I say, "where?" Then you fail to provide a source. Then I say "so then there is no evidence of altruism in animals" Then you say, "no, you made the claim and have to prove it". But I made the claim as a result of the fact that you cannot prove your claim.

this is too funny.

really.

your cracking me up with this.

 

[createdtoworship]

And that’s why most atheists won’t actually claim there is no god. Because that’s a valid objection.

this proves my point that atheists changed their definition of atheism to make it less attack-able. I understand it, but it is technically moving the goal posts, and is illegal in debate. So you technically should not be able to use the term atheism.

 

[Ken-1122]

this proves my point that atheists changed their definition of atheism to make it less attack-able. I understand it, but it is technically moving the goal posts, and is illegal in debate. So you technically should not be able to use the term atheism.

The term Atheism is not restricted to those who claim God does not exist, it also includes those for whatever reason don't believe in God.

 

[gaara4158]

so like I said, reversing the burden of proof is as follows. I say that self sacrificial love only exists in humans, you say" no it exists in animals" then I say, "where?" Then you fail to provide a source. Then I say "so then altruism does not exist in animals" Then you say, "no, you made the claim and have to prove it". But I made the claim as a result of the fact that you cannot prove your claim.

this is too funny.

really.

your cracking me up with this.

Now now, don’t get emotional because you’ve been shown an error in your thinking. The burden of proof lies with you, the one arguing that animals *don't* do something. If you don’t demonstrate that premise you’re committing the black swan fallacy. Anyone arguing to the contrary of that claim is of course also obligated to demonstrate their factual correctness, but if they are unable to do so, your position isn’t the default as you seem to think. You still have to demonstrate your claim.

this proves my point that atheists changed their definition of atheism to make it less attack-able. I understand it, but it is technically moving the goal posts, and is illegal in debate. So you technically should not be able to use the term atheism.

Definitions change. It is not “moving the goalposts” to use a modernly-accepted label for your position. If it helps you understand us better, you may consider us nontheists. The label isn’t important. It’s the position we actually care about.

 

[AACJ]

"Morality" is a human system meant to explain, extrapolate and control human behaviour.

If it did indeed "come from God"... it would be an abject failure.

The only system of morality that has been demonstrated to be conducive to and necessary for a prosperous nation is that system found in the Christian worldview. Atheists should not ignore history as a source for determining Truth.

 

[Freodin]

The only system of morality that has been demonstrated to be conducive to and necessary for a prosperous nation is that system found in the Christian worldview. Atheists should not ignore history as a source for determining Truth.

As an avid student of history, I find that rather amusing. We can surely talk about different historical examples, but first I would like to know: what is is "system found in the Christian worldview" that you are talking about? What does this "system of morality" entail?

 

[AACJ]

As an avid student of history, I find that rather amusing. We can surely talk about different historical examples, but first I would like to know: what is is "system found in the Christian worldview" that you are talking about? What does this "system of morality" entail?

Your personal amusement notwithstanding..

Every worldview, of course, contains a system of morality including your own. Such a system proposes and supports principles--based on proposed sources of truth--pertaining to what constitutes moral truth.

So of course, the biblical worldview makes appeals to sources of truth concerning belief and practice. These include the Holy Spirit, God's word, reason, and history, not all of these being equal in terms of infallible authority.

Pertaining to history, there would be no America outside of the application of biblical principles; and as an example of the influence of biblical principles and the validation of the biblical Christian worldview, the principle of prayer saturated all levels of early American society, and based on the eyewitness testimony of certain Founders, there would not be that unique and great US Constitution, as was created and ratified, without Christian prayer. In addition, societal laws and tradition are not independent of the majority worldview (and its principles) in that society; the majority worldview in early America was was the Christian worldview. If a society is truly prosperous, then such prosperity is not independent of those principles and is thus a validation of the truth of the worldview.

People can argue until they are blue in the face as to what worldview or belief system is valid. A great benefit of history is that it demonstrates what worldview is valid.

 

[Freodin]

Your personal amusement notwithstanding..

Every worldview, of course, contains a system of morality including your own. Such a system proposes and supports principles--based on proposed sources of truth--pertaining to what constitutes moral truth.

So of course, the biblical worldview makes appeals to sources of truth concerning belief and practice. These include the Holy Spirit, God's word, reason, and history, not all of these being equal in terms of infallible authority.

Pertaining to history, as an example of the influence of biblical principles and the validation of the biblical Christian worldview, the principle of prayer saturated all levels of early American society, and based on the eyewitness testimony of certain Founders, there would be no US constitution, as was created and ratified, without Christian prayer.

So, this "Christian system of morality" means "prayer"? That is, if I gather and lead my troops in prayer to Jesus before I go out and slaughter another tribe of Natives, that's "Christian morality"?

No, don't answer that. I am just being facetious.

But seriously: you didn't answer my question. What does this "Christian system of morality" mean? Non-christian "nations" pray... and are successful.
Of course, you being American and citing the US Constitution as an example for "Christian morality", you would be wanting to point to the United States as "THE prosperous nation".

But here someone who has studied history would have to disagree with your reasoning.
1. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. It is also among the western nations the one with the highest wealth gap and examples of abject poverty among large groups of its population.

2. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. But as any student of history knows, every empire, society or nation will at some point face its decline. The USA are wealthy and powerful... today. Rome was mighty and powerful, too... in relation to its world, even more so than the USA are today. Great Britain once ruled an empire that spanned the globe. Both empires lived longer than the USA exists today. And I haven't even mentioned the prime example: China. A nation, a culture, a society... wealthy and powerful, even today... and over ten times as old as the USA.

3. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. But this prosperity is not owned to its "Christian morality system" (whatever that may mean). Historically, a main factor in this wealth was geographical and historcial. A country free to exploit the vast resources of a major landmass, unrestricted by political bounds that would siphon of this wealth. Established on the verge of the industrial revolution, amplifying the potential of these resources. A political and economical system that promoted the gathering of wealth... and didn't ask who owned it previously.

4. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation... but they are not a "Christian" nation. Of course, there is a lot of Christian influence in its culture and society... but this very Constitution that you cite was carefully crafted to NOT make the USA a Christian nation. Some of the founding fathers were Christians. And some where... not so much.
Much, if not most, of the political and socio-political structure of the USA is not based on Christianity in any form, but on the political philosophied of the Enlightenment Era.

5. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation... but the most fundamental value of this prosperity is pure naked GREED. Of course, if you want to claim that as the basis of your "Christian system of morality"... it's fine with me.

 

[AACJ]

So, this "Christian system of morality" means "prayer"? That is, if I gather and lead my troops in prayer to Jesus before I go out and slaughter another tribe of Natives, that's "Christian morality"?

No, don't answer that. I am just being facetious.

But seriously: you didn't answer my question. What does this "Christian system of morality" mean? Non-christian "nations" pray... and are successful.
Of course, you being American and citing the US Constitution as an example for "Christian morality", you would be wanting to point to the United States as "THE prosperous nation".

But here someone who has studied history would have to disagree with your reasoning.
1. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. It is also among the western nations the one with the highest wealth gap and examples of abject poverty among large groups of its population.

2. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. But as any student of history knows, every empire, society or nation will at some point face its decline. The USA are wealthy and powerful... today. Rome was mighty and powerful, too... in relation to its world, even more so than the USA are today. Great Britain once ruled an empire that spanned the globe. Both empires lived longer than the USA exists today. And I haven't even mentioned the prime example: China. A nation, a culture, a society... wealthy and powerful, even today... and over ten times as old as the USA.

3. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation. But this prosperity is not owned to its "Christian morality system" (whatever that may mean). Historically, a main factor in this wealth was geographical and historcial. A country free to exploit the vast resources of a major landmass, unrestricted by political bounds that would siphon of this wealth. Established on the verge of the industrial revolution, amplifying the potential of these resources. A political and economical system that promoted the gathering of wealth... and didn't ask who owned it previously.

4. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation... but they are not a "Christian" nation. Of course, there is a lot of Christian influence in its culture and society... but this very Constitution that you cite was carefully crafted to NOT make the USA a Christian nation. Some of the founding fathers were Christians. And some where... not so much.
Much, if not most, of the political and socio-political structure of the USA is not based on Christianity in any form, but on the political philosophied of the Enlightenment Era.

5. The USA are, overall, a prosperous nation... but the most fundamental value of this prosperity is pure naked GREED. Of course, if you want to claim that as the basis of your "Christian system of morality"... it's fine with me.

It does your argument no good to engage in American deconstructionism. So consider a better approach and not try to portray the totality of America's heritage, history and practice only in terms of its past transgressions.

Also notice that I made reference to early America.

As a starter, early America is absolutely unique. Some of the elements of a special work of God is uniqueness and duration. America has historically attracted more immigrants than any other nation ins the world. Its Constitution contains absolutely unique elements and it has survived longer than any other nation in the world.

 

[Freodin]

It does your argument no good to engage in American deconstructionism. So consider a better approach and not try to portray the totality of America's heritage, history and practice only in terms of its past transgressions.

Also notice that I made reference to early America.

A "nation" isn't just a point in time. It IS it's "heritage, history and practice". As for "early" history... what kind of "Christian system of morality" is behind selling weapons to an islamic state so that they can bomb the civilians in another islamic state?

You still haven't told me what this "Christian system of morality" is that you think the USA are an example of. There is nothing in the Bible about democracy, constitutions, capitalism, technology, natural science or anything else that made America the current leading power in the world. There have been "Christian nations" for centuries before the foundation of the USA... all happily existing and prospering without all these things.

As a starter, early America is absolutely unique. Some of the elements of a special work of God is uniqueness and duration. America has historically attracted more immigrants than any other nation ins the world. Its Constitution contains absolutely unique elements and it has survived longer than any other nation in the world.

I would agree that "early America" is something unique in history. But this uniqueness has nothing to to with "the special work of God". There are other nations in history that are "unique"... in different ways. Many of them prayed to different Gods.
And, yes, the USA has the oldest "Constitution" that currently exists. But that doesn't show any kind of "divine influence"... in fact, this very Constitution completely ignores the divine influence for any its mechanisms. And, as you might be aware, it is not unchanged.

 

[Strathos]

If you don’t demonstrate that premise you’re committing the black swan fallacy.

Never heard of that fallacy. Also why is your avatar of a guy's face melting off? It looks creepy.

 

[gaara4158]

Never heard of that fallacy. Also why is your avatar of a guy's face melting off? It looks creepy.

You should look it up, it’s useful to be aware of logical fallacies.

My avatar is a portrait of Markus, an Android from Detroit. His face is half-off because it’s an illusion caused by his artificial skin technology.

 

[createdtoworship]

The term Atheism is not restricted to those who claim God does not exist, it also includes those for whatever reason don't believe in God.

actually the earliest definition does not include those who claim God does not exist

"atheist, (g) atheall,without, God, or beleeuing that there is no God, or denying any of his attributes."
Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabetical (1604)

Early Modern English Dictionary (16th-18th century) - LEXILOGOS >>

 

[createdtoworship]

Now now, don’t get emotional because you’ve been shown an error in your thinking. The burden of proof lies with you, the one arguing that animals *don't* do something. If you don’t demonstrate that premise you’re committing the black swan fallacy. Anyone arguing to the contrary of that claim is of course also obligated to demonstrate their factual correctness, but if they are unable to do so, your position isn’t the default as you seem to think. You still have to demonstrate your claim.


Definitions change. It is not “moving the goalposts” to use a modernly-accepted label for your position. If it helps you understand us better, you may consider us nontheists. The label isn’t important. It’s the position we actually care about.

well I am fully persuaded I have revealed two separate and distinct errors and fallacies in your posts, so until you adress them specifically I am done with this.

I have nothing more that I have to say at this point.

thank you for taking the time to respond to these posts, even though you specifically said you were not going to. And asked other atheists to not engage me. I am not bitter, I thought it was funny. Especially now that you engage me every day, and many of the atheists that agreed to not engage me are now engaging me. sorry, I know you don't want that brought up. But it is humorous.

 

[Ken-1122]

actually the earliest definition does not include those who claim God does not exist

"atheist, (g) atheall,without, God, or beleeuing that there is no God, or denying any of his attributes."
Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabetical (1604)

Early Modern English Dictionary (16th-18th century) - LEXILOGOS >>

1604? I doubt that could be considered an earliest definition. Christians were called Atheists when the Romans were tossin' them to the lions remember? And the Romans knew they believed in a God, just the wrong one. I think that precedes the 1600's.

 

[createdtoworship]

1604? I doubt that could be considered an earliest definition. Christians were called Atheists when the Romans were tossin' them to the lions remember? And the Romans knew they believed in a God, just the wrong one. I think that precedes the 1600's.

sure. It's just that english dictionaries did not document the definition that early. So if you can prove that a definition meant something else, at an earlier date, via some dictionary or other official manner, then you may have something here.

 

[gaara4158]

well I am fully persuaded I have revealed two separate and distinct errors and fallacies in your posts, so until you adress them specifically I am done with this.

I have nothing more that I have to say at this point.

thank you for taking the time to respond to these posts, even though you specifically said you were not going to. And asked other atheists to not engage me. I am not bitter, I thought it was funny. Especially now that you engage me every day, and many of the atheists that agreed to not engage me are now engaging me. sorry, I know you don't want that brought up. But it is humorous.

Yes, you did get the better of me in that respect. I had marked you as not worth my time, but then I saw an opening I hadn’t tried yet so I went for it, and quite successfully. You have run out of rebuttals and are now running away. Hopefully you have learned something, so this can be a win for all of us.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, you did get the better of me in that respect. I had marked you as not worth my time, but then I saw an opening I hadn’t tried yet so I went for it, and quite successfully. You have run out of rebuttals and are now running away. Hopefully you have learned something, so this can be a win for all of us.

running? How so? I never made the claim animals were not altruistic I said this:

"So no I don't fully believe animals even can be altruistic, in the full definition of the word. I add sacrificial to altruism. And that is not in the definition. "

because self sacrificial love and altruism have different meanings.

altruism is simply doing something selflessly, self sacrificial love is that plus the fact that you are doing something sacrificially. So I was amending the definition of altruism, (which I should not have done). As I don't agree with people changing definitions of words. The problem is that you brought altruism into it, but I was never talking about altruism, I have only debated about self sacrificial love, altruism as I have proven is a different thing. But regardless I did say that altruism can only be proven in an animal if you could read it's thoughts to tell it was doing something unselfishly, and you did not respond, or could not respond to that.