Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

In what way did I move the goalposts?

You said to Ken that the majority of the known world accepts God.

I said that while the majority of the world accepts God, the majority also rejects the Christian God. That is all my position regarding this topic has ever been.

So please explain how I moved the goalposts.

oh I see. Yes you are correct. The majority does reject the christian God, but only because it has higher standards of morality. Christians are the most loving and moral of all religions. I am busy now, but I will post a peer review later.

 

[Kylie]

oh I see. Yes you are correct. The majority does reject the christian God, but only because it has higher standards of morality. Christians are the most loving and moral of all religions. I am busy now, but I will post a peer review later.

lol.

Religious upbringing associated with less altruism, study finds

A New Study Changes Conventional Thinking About Very Religious People And Helping Strangers

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

 

[createdtoworship]

lol.

Religious upbringing associated with less altruism, study finds

A New Study Changes Conventional Thinking About Very Religious People And Helping Strangers

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

yeah news being nice to religion, sorry if I don't trust news articles.

try using a peer review like the ones I have.

I don't want to post it now, but it basically says that christians drink less alcohol in highschool, even catholics drink more than christians, and the non religious drink a lot more.

so that proves by peer review that christians are more moral than some other religions and the non religious.

it's the power of Jesus, that empowers us with grace to have victory over sin.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

lol.

Religious upbringing associated with less altruism, study finds

A New Study Changes Conventional Thinking About Very Religious People And Helping Strangers

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Obscurantism (and sheer ambiguity of social research) at its best!

 

[brinny]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Ravi Zacharias gives excellent responses to questions such as these. Do a search on him and his various subjects he covers. It will be most enlightening and edifying (and sometimes humorous).

Great question, by the way.

 

[Strathos]

yeah news being nice to religion, sorry if I don't trust news articles.

try using a peer review like the ones I have.

I don't want to post it now, but it basically says that christians drink less alcohol in highschool, even catholics drink more than christians, and the non religious drink a lot more.

so that proves by peer review that christians are more moral than some other religions and the non religious.

it's the power of Jesus, that empowers us with grace to have victory over sin.

Are you saying that Catholics aren't Christian?

 

[Ken-1122]

sir everyone has an agenda. you take exception with the majority of the known world who accepts God. I take exception with the minority of the world who rejects God. So if you can find an evolutionist who is unbiased, then I will provide a creationist who is unbiased. And we can compare.
but you originally did not say unbiased, you only moved the goal posts after I provided 24 scientists.

You seem to be making the false assumption that "evolutionists" are all atheists, and all the theists are creationists; you couldn't be more wrong. As you can see from the below link, only 46% of Physics and people who study Astronomist (people who study in the field) are identify as atheist. That means there are a whole lot of theists who study in that field who are not creationists. All I asked for was to provide people who study in the field who are not creationists.

Scientists and Belief

I never said they aren't capable, I am saying their is no evidence of it.


I provided examples of people forgiving those who murder them and their loved ones. Remember elizebeth elliot?


We know that animals don't need forgiveness because they hunt out of instinct. However if you claim love evolved from animals then you must show that animals too can forgive, and you cannot provide that. So your argument fails.



See above, this is answered


humans have no predator animals, they are the top of the food chain.

hence why tigers, lions, and grizzlies are becoming rare.

I have successfully refuted all your points in this post, I will not repeat them. If you bring them up again, I will simply move on and not address them. Not because I am being mean, but because people like to repeat refuted arguments over and over and over.

The reason your argument does not make sense is because you keep insisting on comparing "apples to oranges" instead of apples to apples. You claim humans are known for forgiving their enemies, and you provide examples of humans forgiving their human enemies. Then you attempt to point out animals don't do this and you give examples of the predator prey relationship where the prey does not forgive his predator.
This is not the same. If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to
*Either prove animals have enemies within their own herd the way humans do; (something you have yet to prove) and show they don't forgive,
*Or you need to show when humans are prey to predator animals, they forgive while being mauled. And don't go claiming that because we are top of the food chain, predator animals leave us alone, because they don't! A lion will kill and eat a human just as easily as he would any other prey if he had the chance. The only reason he doesn't is because we know how to prevent it from happening.
Once again, your argument failed; care to try again?

 

[Kylie]

yeah news being nice to religion, sorry if I don't trust news articles.

try using a peer review like the ones I have.

I don't want to post it now, but it basically says that christians drink less alcohol in highschool, even catholics drink more than christians, and the non religious drink a lot more.

so that proves by peer review that christians are more moral than some other religions and the non religious.

it's the power of Jesus, that empowers us with grace to have victory over sin.

Anyone else want some cherries while Gradyll's picking them?

 

[createdtoworship]

You seem to be making the false assumption that "evolutionists" are all atheists, and all the theists are creationists; you couldn't be more wrong. As you can see from the below link, only 46% of Physics and people who study Astronomist (people who study in the field) are identify as atheist. That means there are a whole lot of theists who study in that field who are not creationists. All I asked for was to provide people who study in the field who are not creationists.

Scientists and Belief



The reason your argument does not make sense is because you keep insisting on comparing "apples to oranges" instead of apples to apples. You claim humans are known for forgiving their enemies, and you provide examples of humans forgiving their human enemies. Then you attempt to point out animals don't do this and you give examples of the predator prey relationship where the prey does not forgive his predator.
This is not the same. If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to
*Either prove animals have enemies within their own herd the way humans do; (something you have yet to prove) and show they don't forgive,
*Or you need to show when humans are prey to predator animals, they forgive while being mauled. And don't go claiming that because we are top of the food chain, predator animals leave us alone, because they don't! A lion will kill and eat a human just as easily as he would any other prey if he had the chance. The only reason he doesn't is because we know how to prevent it from happening.
Once again, your argument failed; care to try again?

Again animals are not humans natural predators, so you only rebuttal fails. Also I know about theistic evolution. I wasn't talking about the minority. Of course their are always acceptions to any rule. My point is that while humans seem very capable of sacrificial love including love of enemies as proven by forgiveness of religious people as per peer review. There Is No Evidence Animals Forgive Their enemies, and on an even more basic level there is no evidence of animals having sacrificial love for other pack mates ( not children) Sorry for the sentence caps, my phone is wonky.

 

[createdtoworship]

Anyone else want some cherries while Gradyll's picking them?

You can't expect us to honor news articles in a scientific debate. That is very optimistic of you.

 

[Kylie]

You can't expect us to honor news articles in a scientific debate. That is very optimistic of you.

A scientific debate about a subjective topic?

 

[Ken-1122]

Again animals are not humans natural predators, so you only rebuttal fails.

Yes they are! That’s why a wild lion or tiger will not hesitate to prey upon a human if the human were foolish enough to be around them unprotected!

Also I know about theistic evolution. I wasn't talking about the minority. Of course their are always acceptions to any rule. My point is that while humans seem very capable of sacrificial love including love of enemies as proven by forgiveness of religious people as per peer review. There Is No Evidence Animals Forgive Their enemies, and on an even more basic level there is no evidence of animals having sacrificial love for other pack mates ( not children) Sorry for the sentence caps, my phone is wonky.

Perhaps it’s because they don’t have enemies within the pack, so there is no need to forgive.

 

[createdtoworship]

A scientific debate about a subjective topic?

So proving animals have love is a scientific endevor, but disproving it is not?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes they are! That’s why a wild lion or tiger will not hesitate to prey upon a human if the human were foolish enough to be around them unprotected!

Perhaps it’s because they don’t have enemies within the pack, so there is no need to forgive.

No sir, the evidence is all arounder you. Do you see bears roaming the streets, unafraid? Do you see cougars and mountain lions roaming our cities unhindered? No.

 

[Kylie]

So proving animals have love is a scientific endevor, but disproving it is not?

We were talking about the relative moralities of believers compared to non-believers.

In any case, it's a bit rich that you are complaining that my sources are just news articles when each one of those articles provides a link to the paper that it was talking about.

Here's the paper the first article was talking about: https://www.cell.com/current-biolog...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982215011677?showall=true

The one from the second article: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

And the one from the third: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

 

[Ken-1122]

No sir, the evidence is all arounder you. Do you see bears roaming the streets, unafraid? Do you see cougars and mountain lions roaming our cities unhindered? No.

Cities and streets are unnatural. When a human gets in a natural environment where lions and cougars live, they will be attacked.

 

[createdtoworship]

We were talking about the relative moralities of believers compared to non-believers.

In any case, it's a bit rich that you are complaining that my sources are just news articles when each one of those articles provides a link to the paper that it was talking about.

Here's the paper the first article was talking about: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01167-7?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982215011677?showall=true

The one from the second article: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

And the one from the third: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

The first one has a bias of evolution, not done from a neutral standpoint, the second one does not offer any objective facts that support its conclusion in the abstract, the third one I will read soon and the fourth. But just so you know it's important to have non biased sources as I have presented with my peer reviews.

 

[createdtoworship]

We were talking about the relative moralities of believers compared to non-believers.

In any case, it's a bit rich that you are complaining that my sources are just news articles when each one of those articles provides a link to the paper that it was talking about.

Here's the paper the first article was talking about: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01167-7?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982215011677?showall=true

The one from the second article: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

And the one from the third: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

update: The first one has a bias of evolution, not done from a neutral standpoint, the second one does not offer any objective facts that support its conclusion in the abstract, the third one does not define altruism very clearly, and it appeared to be pre determined specialized tests according to their own bias. In other words simply seeing if children were nicer or more forgiving, they did other types of social tests that had nothing really to do with morality (from what I could see, but if you can define what tests of altruism were done, I am all ears). But just so you know it's important to have non biased sources as I have presented with my peer reviews.

 

[Kylie]

The first one has a bias of evolution, not done from a neutral standpoint, the second one does not offer any objective facts that support its conclusion in the abstract, the third one I will read soon and the fourth. But just so you know it's important to have non biased sources as I have presented with my peer reviews.

And I suppose you would reject any theory of aeronautics on the basis that it's biased since it assumes gravity?

 

[Ophiolite]

The majority does reject the christian God, but only because it has higher standards of morality.

What is your evidence that the rejection of the Christian God is because of an aversion to Christianity's higher standards of morality? Remember, you need to support this assertion with something from a neutral source. That is your own rule.

Christians are the most loving and moral of all religions.

Now that sentence makes no sense. Which meaning were you trying to convey?
1. Christians are the most loving and moral of all those who follow a religion.
2. Christianity is the most loving and moral of religions.

I should like to see peer reviewed, independent, unbiased evidence for whichever of those versions you meant. Again, just following your own rule.

In regard to the first interpretation, I see a lot of hate, racism, indifference to suffering and the like from some members here who identify as Christians. Not exactly a high standard of morality. On a world scale I'm not sure how you fit the Crusades into that interpretation. Historical and therefore irrelevant?

I'm not seeking to knock Christianity, but as is the case with all religions, many unpleasant things are done in its name, so I find that first interpretation - if that is the one you meant - to be whimsical at best.

I am busy now, but I will post a peer review later.

Did I miss it? If I did, could you give me the post # please?