Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

You just refused to look at the evidence and science available.

So, now you are just arguing in bad faith.



My site uses the peer reviewed research available, yours doesn't. It's not hypocrisy to hold both sides to the same standard.

Incidentally your cite doesn't argue against ERV's being evidence for common decent. So, you are batting a 0 with it regardless of how I regard it. It mentions them once and seems to agree that they ARE evidence for common decent, but that they don't disprove ID. I agree since you can't disprove ID. ID is a non falsifiable hypothesis that can fit any data and ERV's are fairly strong evidence for common decent and thus the dreaded "macro-evolution".

You didn't even read the website YOU posted apparently.

I don't even have a problem with common decent, it's just that universal common decent as in the case of phylogeny and macro evolution is a problem.

there are several articles on that site, referring to ERV's. I have never read an article that did not reference a peer review.

 

[Ken-1122]

Without the yardstick of God, you can't even define evil properly.

Speak for yourself. Just because YOU can't doesn't mean nobody else can.

 

[Newtheran]

Speak for yourself. Just because YOU can't doesn't mean nobody else can.

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

 

[gaara4158]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

And you’re missing his point. If someone has the disposition to commit murder or the like, why would they take God’s authority into account? They’re already disregarding far more relevant authorities such as the legal and social consequences of their actions.

 

[Newtheran]

And you’re missing his point. If someone has the disposition to commit murder or the like, why would they take God’s authority into account? They’re already disregarding far more relevant authorities such as the legal and social consequences of their actions.

That's a discussion of legality, not morality and a separate issue entirely.

 

[Skreeper]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

Humans are a social species. We need other people to have a decent life. Basically all human societies can agree on some basic rules that make living together much more fruitful and effective. And what we humans want most is a happy and hopefully long life.

You can say "Well if you say murder is wrong, that's like just your opinion man". To which I would say, look at all societies throughout history that did not punish murder and now tell me how great that worked out for them.

I don't think it's so hard to understand that killing each other doesn't really benefit anyone in the end, even the ones with the biggest stick.

 

[gaara4158]

That's a discussion of legality, not morality and a separate issue entirely.

Well, you're the one suggesting in the absence of some God-given morality all reasons not to murder somehow dissolve, and that really isn't the case. What we're trying to show you is that your brand of morality, being a set of laws given by God, isn't one that really factors into people's decisions, especially those already willing to break laws.

 

[holo]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

I think the burden is on you to prove that morality exists in and of itself, outside of, and independent of, human experience.

Obviously we all feel like it exists in that way, but that doesn't mean it actually does. The theory of evolution gives a reasonable explanation for why we have a sense of morality: it's made us successful as a species. And it's an obvious explanation for why we feel moral obligation first and foremost to our children, ourselves, our tribe, our country etc, in that order. If morality was in fact something that was given to us by God, I would've expected it to be quite different. For one thing I assume we would've cared as much about foreign adults as we care about our own children.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

And you’re missing his point. If someone has the disposition to commit murder or the like, why would they take God’s authority into account? They’re already disregarding far more relevant authorities such as the legal and social consequences of their actions.

That's a discussion of legality, not morality and a separate issue entirely.

Humans are a social species. We need other people to have a decent life. Basically all human societies can agree on some basic rules that make living together much more fruitful and effective. And what we humans want most is a happy and hopefully long life.

You can say "Well if you say murder is wrong, that's like just your opinion man". To which I would say, look at all societies throughout history that did not punish murder and now tell me how great that worked out for them.

I don't think it's so hard to understand that killing each other doesn't really benefit anyone in the end, even the ones with the biggest stick.

Here is how I view evolution:


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

 

[variant]

I don't even have a problem with common decent, it's just that universal common decent as in the case of phylogeny and macro evolution is a problem.

there are several articles on that site, referring to ERV's. I have never read an article that did not reference a peer review.

If you don't have a problem with common decent you don't have a problem with macro evolution they are the same thing.

ERV's are evidence for phylogeny macro evolution and universal common decent. That's how far the evidence goes. We could recreate the tree of life with just ERV's to guide us and it would be very similar to what we had surmised by studying biology in general.

 

[gaara4158]

Here is how I view evolution:


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

You’ve been soundly defeated on evolution in every thread you’ve brought it up, but feel free to parade your ignorance some more.

 

[holo]

Here is how I view evolution:


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water

Your view of evolution is wrong.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle

That's not a theory of evolution, but a speculation about how life itself began. Personally I've never seen anyone claim that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle.

If you're going to argue against someone's position, you must know what their position is, rather than making up a caricature of it.

 

[variant]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions, and you know what they say about those. If we're all just hairless apes, I can find a dozen other hairless apes who would agree or disagree with you to varying degrees. Why should I hold the opinion of a chimp of any higher regard than an organgutan?

There either is a God or there isn't.

Regarding the entire thought process of the entirety of humanity on morality as nothing seems a bit crass. It's quite possible that we invented all moral ideas, including the ones you attribute to Gods.

So, why should I regard the opinions of humanity on the nature of God any higher than I do their opinion of morality?

Your opinions on what God thinks is just adding an extra layer of things to doubt to the discussion.

If God decides to start speaking for itself, we can then decide whether to regard Gods opinions on morality as to whether they are obviously superior.

 

[variant]

If you're going to argue against someone's position, you must know what their position is, rather than making up a caricature of it.

I mean if you want to argue in good faith I guess, but this person has chosen to actively not do that.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you don't have a problem with common decent you don't have a problem with macro evolution they are the same thing.

ERV's are evidence for phylogeny macro evolution and universal common decent. That's how far the evidence goes. We could recreate the tree of life with just ERV's to guide us and it would be very similar to what we had surmised by studying biology in general.

I don't think you have the evidence you think you do. I don't want peer reviews showing how ERV's prove common decent, but do you have them that prove universal common decent? This is what you are actually claiming, and This is hundreds if thousands of times more difficult to prove, as is the case with most macro evolution.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're missing the point. Without God's impramatur on the definition of evil, all we are left with is opinions,

No; because God’s imprimatur is opinion as well! If I’m going to appeal to opinion, I might as well appeal to my own.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

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 too believe morality can only come from God, but since the so-called Enlightenment, lots of humans have decided to throw God out and invent their own morality - which can literally be anything, and can vary from culture to culture, person to person, and from time to time. For example, if you get enough folks believing that it's morally okay for homosexuals to marry, then that becomes the law of the land and hence becomes "morality".

Modern secular morality is mostly based on utopia fantasies of equality that have their genesis in the Enlightenment, and all sorts of mad "morality" rides on the back of what I call the Great False god of Equality. The obsession with equality is an atheist invention and trait and amounts to their religion - just look at Communism, and that other great evil that came from it, feminism.

When the devil comes along speaking in the name of equality, who can oppose him?

 

[Ken-1122]

I too believe morality can only come from God,

Which God? Yours or somebody else's? If yours, how do you know your God's morality is right and the other guys morality is wrong? Unless of course you are capable of judging right vs wrong yourself....

 

[createdtoworship]

Which God? Yours or somebody else's? If yours, how do you know your God's morality is right and the other guys morality is wrong? Unless of course you are capable of judging right vs wrong yourself....

I believe sacrificial love for enemies is a type of morality only found in humans. But this is just my opinion I cannot prove it. However no one has been able to demonstrate this character naturally evolved in animals. Animals can love one another, but there has been no evidence of animals loving their enemies, or sacrificing for other animals of the same pack that are not their children. What you typically see is pack animals after a kill, eating to the full, then bringing back food or bringing other pack members to the kill site. Rarely if ever do you see animals not eating, just so that other pack animals have enough to eat. Like I said, unless it's their children. Because there is no alleged evidence of this type of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom, that people can provide on these threads, I believe this is an example of divine love, given to humanity from God.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe sacrificial love for enemies is a type of morality only found in humans. But this is just my opinion I cannot prove it. However no one has been able to demonstrate this character naturally evolved in animals. Animals can love one another, but there has been no evidence of animals loving their enemies, or sacrificing for other animals of the same pack that are not their children. What you typically see is pack animals after a kill, eating to the full, then bringing back food or bringing other pack members to the kill site. Rarely if ever do you see animals not eating, just so that other pack animals have enough to eat. Like I said, unless it's their children. Because there is no evidence of this type of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom, that people can provide on these threads, I believe this is an example of divine love, given to humanity from God.

What about torture and extreme hatred? I don't see animals torturing other animals for pleasure the way some humans do to other humans; do you?