Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

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

that is the fallacy of biased sample. Gravity has more evidence than macro evolution. Gravity is almost universally observed, while macro evolution fails to produce one example of macro evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

I provide several peer reviews that religion has an effect on chemical codependency, but many times this means abstinence of alcohol or drugs all together. And you would agree that abstinence from all chemicals (if you are dependant) is not an attractive character of religion to the unreligious. I mean is it attractive in highschool not to go to parties because your a christian? So I hope that answers your question, here is the thread: Christianity more resistant to chemical dependency (because it's the power of God)

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.

of those who are religious many don't actually follow the morals of their religion, a higher percentage of christians do follow what the Bible says on loving enemies. I can show where christians drink less alcohol than catholics per a peer review on the study, but I don't have peer review to back up my opinion on love in general and that christianity is more moral and loving.

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

I did provide some, now if you don't mind provide some for your perspective. After all why should I be the only one fishing for truth. That is unless you are merely here to bash christianity and not to discuss your views at all. Which I would expect.

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?

biased sample.

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.

you say you are not here to bash christianity, then why are you here? Have you come to terms with the honesty of that question yet?

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

give me some time, however I did find a peer review that religion plays an important role on ones ability to forgive:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

I know that does not answer the question you were asking, I have a lot on my plate right now. So excuse me if I can't use all of my work time answering your questions.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

sorry your basic premise fails miserably, humans are on the top of the food chain. That is why we have laws protecting wildlife from us.

 

[gaara4158]

sorry your basic premise fails miserably, humans are on the top of the food chain. That is why we have laws protecting wildlife from us.

Humans are only at the top of the food chain because of our massively superior technology and teamwork. Without it, we are frail, sluggish prey animals. Haven’t you seen Grizzly Man?

 

[Kylie]

that is the fallacy of biased sample. Gravity has more evidence than macro evolution. Gravity is almost universally observed, while macro evolution fails to produce one example of macro evolution.

Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know anything about evolution.

 

[the iconoclast]

Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know anything about evolution.

Hey hey kylie

You have spoken like someone who has tried to use a fictional tv show as burden of proof

 

[createdtoworship]

Humans are only at the top of the food chain because of our massively superior technology and teamwork. Without it, we are frail, sluggish prey animals. Haven’t you seen Grizzly Man?

so you prove my case, thank you. You agree humans are at the top of the food chain. animals are no longer humans predators. Our superiour intelligence, weapons, etc make us unmatched. In fact we have to pass laws so that people don't hunt bears, tigers, lions, sharks for fun.

 

[createdtoworship]

Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know anything about evolution.

Hey hey kylie

You have spoken like someone who has tried to use a fictional tv show as burden of proof

macro evolution, an evolution above the level of species, has never been observed. Have you actually with your eyes seen a monkey evolve into a human? Is there fossils proving lineage to two separate genus? There is none. There are popular missing links but they universally fail. Neanderthal was human like, and lucy was ape like. Go ahead try it out, try to find a missing link in ape/human evolution. You can't. So your silence proves my point. But what is scary is that people if they found a missing link that happened to work, would be satisfied. Theoretically speaking animal forms should be completely fluid. There should be no lines between any animal types. Because everyone would be evolving theoretically either successfully or unsuccessfully into other things. Evolution simply doesn't work as a theory. What we have a distinct animal genuses that reproduce within their kind. Yes they change colors and sizes and such, but they are the same type of animal becuase they can still reproduce and create fertile offspring. As far as I know a humans cannot mate with an apes and create fertile offspring because they have different genuses so even if we did evolve from apes, it would die out in one generation because the evolutionary trait was not beneficial.

 

[the iconoclast]

macro evolution, an evolution above the level of species, has never been observed. Have you actually with your eyes seen a monkey evolve into a human? Is there fossils proving lineage to two separate genus? There is none. There are popular missing links but they universally fail. Neanderthal was human like, and lucy was ape like. Go ahead try it out, try to find a missing link in ape/human evolution. You can't. So your silence proves my point.

Hey hey

Whoops i edited my comment as it may look like that was intended for you when it was in reference to @Kylie. She argued a point by trying to use star trek as her burden of proof.

Im on your side. Give it to these atheists and evolutionists.

We should be friends, i might hang around and see what happens

 

[gaara4158]

so you prove my case, thank you. You agree humans are at the top of the food chain. animals are no longer humans predators.

Then how do you explain all the humans who get eaten by animals? I guess there are no animals that have us in their regular diet anymore, but there are plenty of animals that could and would eat us without skipping a beat in an unarmed, one on one confrontation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hey hey

Whoops i edited my comment as it may look like that was intended for you when it was in reference to @Kylie. She argued a point by trying to use star trek as her burden of proof.

Im on your side. Give it to these atheists and evolutionists.

We should be friends, i might hang around and see what happens

Sorry sir, I was confused, I am usually at the butt end of humor. Sorry about that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then how do you explain all the humans who get eaten by animals? I guess there are no animals that have us in their regular diet anymore, but there are plenty of animals that could and would eat us without skipping a beat in an unarmed, one on one confrontation.

but that is a side issue. The issue is "are animals, mankinds natural predators"

do polar bears in alaska roam the street in packs and take small children and domestic animals with them?

no. Obviously not.

if you can prove humans are not on the top of the food chain you can prove that man has natural predators. But you can't.

 

[the iconoclast]

Sorry sir, I was confused, I am usually at the butt end of humor. Sorry about that.

Haha all good
Ive got your back brother. Lets have some fun!! Ill chime in when i see an opening

 

[gaara4158]

but that is a side issue. The issue is "are animals, mankinds natural predators"

do polar bears in alaska roam the street in packs and take small children and domestic animals with them?

no. Obviously not.

if you can prove humans are not on the top of the food chain you can prove that man has natural predators. But you can't.

They don’t need to. They will absolutely attack humans on sight of they’re hungry, and there’s no negotiating with them. Any apex predator is only an apex predator in its natural habitat. The human habitat is any livable environment surrounded by other humans and technology. Outside of that, we are like great white sharks flopping in the desert.

 

[createdtoworship]

They don’t need to. They will absolutely attack humans on sight of they’re hungry, and there’s no negotiating with them. Any apex predator is only an apex predator in its natural habitat. The human habitat is any livable environment surrounded by other humans and technology. Outside of that, we are like great white sharks flopping in the desert.

like I said if you can prove that humans are not at the top of the food chain, then maybe you would have an argument. If they are at the top, then by that very fact, there is nothing higher than humans.

 

[gaara4158]

like I said if you can prove that humans are not at the top of the food chain, then maybe you would have an argument. If they are at the top, then by that very fact, there is nothing higher than humans.

There isn’t any single “food chain.” There are multiple different food chains that exist in their respective ecosystems. We’re not on any of them because we have developed agriculture. Without that, we are reduced to scavengers and game hunters, prey of other pack animals and apex predators.

If you think you’re higher than a tiger, fight one.

 

[KyleSpringer]

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?

I would simply suggest that they’re borrowing from a worldview they don’t adhere to. One can’t say humans are solely natural creatures and that behavior is determined by chemical reactions, and then proceed to make a case that humans should adjust their behavior according to what can or cannot be done legally.

 

[Ken-1122]

sorry your basic premise fails miserably, humans are on the top of the food chain. That is why we have laws protecting wildlife from us.

Humans are on top of the food chain because we use unnatural means to put ourselves there. That's why 150 years ago, it was very common for people in India living outside the city to be killed by tigers; at that time they didn't have the technology (weapons) to keep themselves safe

 

[gaara4158]

I would simply suggest that they’re borrowing from a worldview they don’t adhere to. One can’t say humans are solely natural creatures and that behavior is determined by chemical reactions, and then proceed to make a case that humans should adjust their behavior according to what can or cannot be done legally.

Why not?

 

[KyleSpringer]

Why not?

In a world where everything is biological, using words like right and wrong, or good and evil, is irrelevant.