Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

WATCH: Caring lion saves calf from being killed by ANOTHER lion in AMAZING act of kindness

The lioness not only did not attack or kill the calf, but it protected it from another lioness. It put its own safety at risk to protect a creature that would normally be prey.

"
Territoriality
Lions are highly territorial and occupy the same area for generations. Females actively defend their territories against other females, while resident males protect prides from rival coalitions. Territory size depends on prey abundance, as well as access to water and denning sites."

Social Behavior | College of Biological Sciences

so it could be as simple as a lioness was trespassing on another pride's territory and was attacked for that reason. and to protect it's food source from going to support another pride.

see, if there is a competing lion in your territory, and you are in charge of protecting your territory, there is no better time to attack than when the enemy lion is going in for a kill and not looking at you. Perfect time for an ambush.

that is one option.

the other option is that we don't see the end of the video, the lion could have eaten the calf later.

and again if she was not hungry, or had just eaten, she was protecting her food source from competing prides.

I highly highly doubt the lion decided to be nice to a calf,

just sayin

 

[createdtoworship]

loving your enemies and having a selfless love is something that comes from God:

mother nature is not your mother. Get over her.

 

[Kylie]

"
Territoriality
Lions are highly territorial and occupy the same area for generations. Females actively defend their territories against other females, while resident males protect prides from rival coalitions. Territory size depends on prey abundance, as well as access to water and denning sites."

Social Behavior | College of Biological Sciences

so it could be as simple as a lioness was trespassing on another pride's territory and was attacked for that reason. and to protect it's food source from going to support another pride.

see, if there is a competing lion in your territory, and you are in charge of protecting your territory, there is no better time to attack than when the enemy lion is going in for a kill and not looking at you. Perfect time for an ambush.

that is one option.

the other option is that we don't see the end of the video, the lion could have eaten the calf later.

and again if she was not hungry, or had just eaten, she was protecting her food source from competing prides.

I highly highly doubt the lion decided to be nice to a calf,

just sayin

Ah yes. You ask for something, and when it is provided you start making excuses.

Somehow I suspect that you'd do this no matter WHAT evidence we present.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah yes. You ask for something, and when it is provided you start making excuses.

Somehow I suspect that you'd do this no matter WHAT evidence we present.

maam, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was actually criticizing it as evidence. But to be clear, the source was not from a scientific source, and most likely from some fake news site. Recommendations for success in the future, is search google scholar, and pick out peer reviews.

 

[Ken-1122]

opps

 

[Ken-1122]

I adressed this in my last post.

No, in your last post you said to google natural enemies; this is not what you were talking about. You were very specific when you said “arch enemies”. Natural enemies is when an animal kills a different type of animal in order that it might eat and not starve to death. Humans kill cows, pigs, and countless other animals in order to eat them without showing compassion. The examples you gave of humans loving their enemies were examples of humans loving other humans who are enemies; not humans loving cows, pigs, and other animals we love to eat; so your examples of animal enemies has to be within species; wolves never showing compassion with enemy wolves, elephants never showing compassion with other elephants, etc.

And it isn’t enough to point to one species of animal that lacks compassion, (there may be other animals out there that have been known to show compassion) you have to provide scientific evidence that not a single animal in the animal world will show compassion towards their fellow pack members, otherwise you would have to admit to the possibility that some animals might show compassion while others do not which is not the argument you were making.

But then we’ve been over this already, I pointed this out to you and you refused to respond. I’m sure you will just ignore this point again and claim all of your claims were backed up with evidence.

sir, it's not really my responsibility to read the thread for you. Please, just go back a few pages and read it. Like I said there are few christians that would come here and believe I didn't back up my claims. That is my target audience. Atheists are not my targeted audience.

On post #207 I went back a few pages and pointed out a half dozen examples of you making claims and refusing to back them up! All I ask is you provide 1 example of you actually providing scientific evidence that backs up some a claim you’ve made. After all, if you are going to insist this from me, you need to provide it yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, in your last post you said to google natural enemies; this is not what you were talking about. You were very specific when you said “arch enemies”. Natural enemies is when an animal kills a different type of animal in order that it might eat and not starve to death. Humans kill cows, pigs, and countless other animals in order to eat them without showing compassion. The examples you gave of humans loving their enemies were examples of humans loving other humans who are enemies; not humans loving cows, pigs, and other animals we love to eat; so your examples of animal enemies has to be within species; wolves never showing compassion with enemy wolves, elephants never showing compassion with other elephants, etc.

And it isn’t enough to point to one species of animal that lacks compassion, (there may be other animals out there that have been known to show compassion) you have to provide scientific evidence that not a single animal in the animal world will show compassion towards their fellow pack members, otherwise you would have to admit to the possibility that some animals might show compassion while others do not which is not the argument you were making.

But then we’ve been over this already, I pointed this out to you and you refused to respond. I’m sure you will just ignore this point again and claim all of your claims were backed up with evidence.


On post #207 I went back a few pages and pointed out a half dozen examples of you making claims and refusing to back them up! All I ask is you provide 1 example of you actually providing scientific evidence that backs up some a claim you’ve made. After all, if you are going to insist this from me, you need to provide it yourself.

I know, I provide evidence that any christian would see as evidence, then an athiest says "no it's not evidence" but the refutation is weak. So then because he lacks a good memory, he thinks he has won and no evidence has been given. Yes I see this every day sir. Nothing new here.

 

[Ophiolite]

I know, I provide evidence that any christian would see as evidence, then an athiest says "no it's not evidence" but the refutation is weak. So then because he lacks a good memory, he thinks he has won and no evidence has been given. Yes I see this every day sir. Nothing new here.

Wow!. Just wow! You really find it impossible to admit you might be wrong, or that another viewpoint might have any validity. "Dunning-Kruger, strong in this one is, Obi-wan."

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow!. Just wow! You really find it impossible to admit you might be wrong, or that another viewpoint might have any validity. "Dunning-Kruger, strong in this one is, Obi-wan."

when was the last time you admitted you were wrong on these threads. So now, if you haven't done so, then please write "I exhort myself" in your post.

 

[Ophiolite]

when was the last time you admitted you were wrong on these threads. So now, if you haven't done so, then please write "I exhort myself" in your post.

I don't recall precisely. I take great care before I post to ensure I have checked my facts and that any opinion has a reasonable basis for being held. Consequently, in over a decade of posting there are very few instances where I was in error. When those instances have occurred I have acknowledged them and, where appropriate, apologised. I am sure there are examples on this forum.

There is one notable exception. On sci.fourms, over ten years ago, I gave another member a hard time over a detail concerning the mechanisms behind plate tectonics. I think I was expounding a now outdated viewpoint. By the time I realised the error, a few years later, the member was long gone and the thread apparently deleted or archived. That instance still troubles me.

 

[Ken-1122]

I know, I provide evidence that any christian would see as evidence, then an athiest says "no it's not evidence" but the refutation is weak. So then because he lacks a good memory, he thinks he has won and no evidence has been given. Yes I see this every day sir. Nothing new here.

It’s not about winning or losing, appealing to Atheist, Theists, or anything else, it’s about honesty, integrity, and the ability to tell the truth! Something you seem to be struggling with right now.

 

[gaara4158]

please provide an example of an animal loving it's enemies (with sacrificial love, a love that is not self centered). Then I would love to address any post you wish.

Read my post again. I’ve already explained the problems with that demand.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't recall precisely. I take great care before I post to ensure I have checked my facts and that any opinion has a reasonable basis for being held. Consequently, in over a decade of posting there are very few instances where I was in error. When those instances have occurred I have acknowledged them and, where appropriate, apologised. I am sure there are examples on this forum.

There is one notable exception. On sci.fourms, over ten years ago, I gave another member a hard time over a detail concerning the mechanisms behind plate tectonics. I think I was expounding a now outdated viewpoint. By the time I realised the error, a few years later, the member was long gone and the thread apparently deleted or archived. That instance still troubles me.

I am sure I can find errors in nearly every thing you post. It's not hard. The reason in this, we can't prove anything for sure. What I mean is prove a single fact to me. Any well known fact in the world of science. You cannot. But somehow we expect non scientists (christians) to give us scientific proofs for God. It's just hypocritical.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s not about winning or losing, appealing to Atheist, Theists, or anything else, it’s about honesty, integrity, and the ability to tell the truth! Something you seem to be struggling with right now.

sir, I appreciate the debate with you, but I know the debate is exhausted when all you can do is belittle, and commit attack fallacies. So take care.

 

[createdtoworship]

Read my post again. I’ve already explained the problems with that demand.

I have read it, you said love is not objective. So what? If you can prove that there is no love in the world, then you may have a point. If what you are saying is that love cannot be tested, and cannot be validated, well then what about all the relationships in the world where they love another person? Would you disagree with all of them? You are simply reaching for something not there. That is exactly why I didn't reply to it.

 

[gaara4158]

I have read it, you said love is not objective. So what? If you can prove that there is no love in the world, then you may have a point. If what you are saying is that love cannot be tested, and cannot be validated, well then what about all the relationships in the world where they love another person? Would you disagree with all of them? You are simply reaching for something not there. That is exactly why I didn't reply to it.

You’re assuming something you call “self-sacrificial love” exists in humans because you can observe self sacrificial behavior, and you can feel the emotion of love, so you assume in some instances the two go together. That’s not completely unreasonable, but if you’re willing to do that for humans, you have to do that for animals, too. Taking self-sacrificial love for granted in humans but refusing to accept that it exists in animals until some authoritative paper says so is completely unreasonable.

 

[createdtoworship]

You’re assuming something you call “self-sacrificial love” exists in humans because you can observe self sacrificial behavior, and you can feel the emotion of love, so you assume in some instances the two go together. That’s not completely unreasonable, but if you’re willing to do that for humans, you have to do that for animals, too. Taking self-sacrificial love for granted in humans but refusing to accept that it exists in animals until some authoritative paper says so is completely unreasonable.

so believing in something that has no evidence is what I should do? I mean I could provide several examples of the existence of self sacrificial love if you want (of humans). But you could not do that with animals.

poor people give twice as much as rich people, and they give to charities that serve the poor, for example, shelters.

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?

so yes, people give food to complete strangers. When I get gas, I have bought deli food for strangers instead of having my usual snack. (as there are homeless that hang out at that gas station). (not to mention we can't really afford it). In the Bible in Luke 21:1-4 a poor woman gives all she had to the local charity, and the Bible says: " And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” This winter when storms were creating that harshest winter in many years on the east coast a woman put up homeless people in a hotel room, and she charged it to her credit card because she could not afford it. Then she connected with other people and eventually 80 homeless were off the streets in freezing temperature. She and the others no doubt saved multiple lives of complete strangers.

Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago


I just don’t see the animal kingdom doing this type of work.

 

[gaara4158]

so believing in something that has no evidence is what I should do? I mean I could provide several examples of the existence of self sacrificial love if you want (of humans). But you could not do that with animals.

I already did. You brushed it off without even reading it because it threatened your worldview.

 

[gaara4158]

so believing in something that has no evidence is what I should do? I mean I could provide several examples of the existence of self sacrificial love if you want (of humans). But you could not do that with animals.

poor people give twice as much as rich people, and they give to charities that serve the poor, for example, shelters.

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?

so yes, people give food to complete strangers. When I get gas, I have bought deli food for strangers instead of having my usual snack. (as there are homeless that hang out at that gas station). (not to mention we can't really afford it). In the Bible in Luke 21:1-4 a poor woman gives all she had to the local charity, and the Bible says: " And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” This winter when storms were creating that harshest winter in many years on the east coast a woman put up homeless people in a hotel room, and she charged it to her credit card because she could not afford it. Then she connected with other people and eventually 80 homeless were off the streets in freezing temperature. She and the others no doubt saved multiple lives of complete strangers.

Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago


I just don’t see the animal kingdom doing this type of work.

Not to mention, even if you do somehow establish some crucial difference between human and animal altruism, your argument is that the difference comes from God. Where’s your scholarly article for that?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am sure I can find errors in nearly every thing you post. It's not hard.

Please, be my guest. I would welcome it. I abhor people who politely choose not to point out my failings. It is of no help to me whatsoever.

The reason in this, we can't prove anything for sure.

Which is why I frequently point out that all scientific findings are provisional and that what I present is the currently best explanation available to account for the observations we have. Or sometimes I'll note that there are a couple of reasonable explanations for a phenomena, one of which I favour for reasons A, B and C. Most (perhaps all) of the atheists and agnostics I've encountered here take the same view.

What I mean is prove a single fact to me. Any well known fact in the world of science. You cannot.

Of course I cannot. Science deals with proofs. Proofs are for mathematicians and the criminally insane. When I speak of a theory it is a model and explanation for a series of observations that provides a better explanation than any other currently available.

But somehow we expect non scientists (christians) to give us scientific proofs for God. It's just hypocritical.

Well that is just silly. For me the reverse is abundantly clear. I have lambasted many Christians on this forum for trying to use science to justify their belief in God, or their interpretation of the Bible, for to do that they have to misinterpret, misunderstand or misrepresent science. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not a matter of science. Point me to anyone who is demanding a proof of God and I'll seek to dissuade them.