Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

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

I know, If I am mistaken I asked for his credentials (the author of the only citation you gave regarding this), which you either didn't have or didn't want to find.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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.

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.

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.

sorry but most atheists do not view it the same as you. You seem to be more reasonable. But I would have to hear more about your views to really say.

 

[Ophiolite]

sorry but most atheists do not view it the same as you. You seem to be more reasonable. But I would have to hear more about your views to really say.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, most atheists I have exchanged ideas with hold much the same outlook. You continue to seem unreasonable, being seemingly fixated on your prejudices. I've read enough of your views to see that you come across as a very narrow minded, narcissistic individual. That does have the benefit of making you an interesting case study. I look forward to continuing that. Do keep posting.

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

you are correct, altruism is what humans show. But it is the animals that I have not seen true altruism in. According to the definition the kind action must be unselfish. But I have added to it a little and made it a special type of altruism, a sacrificial type. Or a type that costs more. So that type of altruism, the self sacrificial type. Is only seen in humans as I have said. And not in the animal world. So we go back to the OP, and ask......what is the origin of that love? It is not replicated in nature. I have proven christians have this altruism. If it is not from nature, then were do the christians get it? From their christianity, which gets it from God.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, but you are mistaken, most atheists I have exchanged ideas with hold much the same outlook. You continue to seem unreasonable, being seemingly fixated on your prejudices. I've read enough of your views to see that you come across as a very narrow minded, narcissistic individual. That does have the benefit of making you an interesting case study. I look forward to continuing that. Do keep posting.

can you prove this? I don't think so. You'll just have to believe me when I say, I highly disagree that most atheists believe that. Well they may in fact believe it, but they did not articulate it without error like you did. They make numerous logical errors typically.

 

[gaara4158]

I know, If I am mistaken I asked for his credentials (the author of the only citation you gave regarding this), which you either didn't have or didn't want to find.

It’s not a scholarly article, I agree. The author is a magazine editor. But that shouldn’t matter. It’s anecdotal evidence of the same grade as your anecdotal evidence of your pets’ behavior. To maintain your position that that sort of behavior doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom you don’t just get to question the author’s authority and be done with it, you have to positively demonstrate that he’s lying.

 

[gaara4158]

you are correct, altruism is what humans show. But it is the animals that I have not seen true altruism in. According to the definition the kind action must be unselfish. But I have added to it a little and made it a special type of altruism, a sacrificial type. Or a type that costs more. So that type of altruism, the self sacrificial type. Is only seen in humans as I have said. And not in the animal world. So we go back to the OP, and ask......what is the origin of that love? It is not replicated in nature. I have proven christians have this altruism. If it is not from nature, then were do the christians get it? From their christianity, which gets it from God.

All of your conclusions beyond “it is not seen in animals” are gratuitous. Where are your scholarly articles for those?

 

[gaara4158]

can you prove this? I don't think so. You'll just have to believe me when I say, I highly disagree that most atheists believe that. Well they may in fact believe it, but they did not articulate it without error like you did. They make numerous logical errors typically.

We might not all state it as elegantly as Ophioloite, but I can attest that he is correct about the majority of self-proclaimed atheists.

 

[Ophiolite]

can you prove this? I don't think so. You'll just have to believe me when I say, I highly disagree that most atheists believe that. Well they may in fact believe it, but they did not articulate it without error like you did. They make numerous logical errors typically.

Proof? Certainly not. It is entirely possible that we have encountered two entirely separate groups of atheists, with two contrasting viewpoints. Of course, it is also entirely possible that your antagonistic, arrogant persona in this forum encourages an aggressive response from atheists that mirrors your expectation of them.

Now, as to the matter of proof, you asserted that atheists demanded that Christians prove the existence of God. This would be a simple matter for you to prove, as all you have to do is provide an example or two. I look forward to seeing these.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s not a scholarly article, I agree. The author is a magazine editor. But that shouldn’t matter. It’s anecdotal evidence of the same grade as your anecdotal evidence of your pets’ behavior. To maintain your position that that sort of behavior doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom you don’t just get to question the author’s authority and be done with it, you have to positively demonstrate that he’s lying.

sorry sir, the reason why I expect a higher value of citation from you, than say for the existence of sacrificial love for example is that love exists everywhere and is excepted by nearly everyone as a real thing in humans. sacrificial love among animals is not. Well maybe among pet lovers or animal rights activists, but not everyone. So your citation needs to come from something not biased, so I ask for peer review or at least something scientific. That article started by talking about how he got his first job at a pub. Which is the opposite of professional.

 

[createdtoworship]

Proof? Certainly not. It is entirely possible that we have encountered two entirely separate groups of atheists, with two contrasting viewpoints. Of course, it is also entirely possible that your antagonistic, arrogant persona in this forum encourages an aggressive response from atheists that mirrors your expectation of them.

Now, as to the matter of proof, you asserted that atheists demanded that Christians prove the existence of God. This would be a simple matter for you to prove, as all you have to do is provide an example or two. I look forward to seeing these.

so you can't prove your assertion but you want me to prove my assertion? I see. But you don't feel your being in the slightest bit inconsistent? I mean you cannot prove any of your assertions but you wish for me to prove mine? And yet you cannot believe that an athiest has asked for proof? When you just did? Now, not only can you not prove your assertions, I would go further in saying none of your assertions are even scientific. As science requires observation to have a hypothesis. Without that there is no scientific method, and without the method, it's not science.

 

[gaara4158]

sorry sir, the reason why I expect a higher value of citation from you, than say for the existence of sacrificial love for example is that love exists everywhere and is excepted by nearly everyone as a real thing in humans. sacrificial love among animals is not. Well maybe among pet lovers or animal rights activists, but not everyone. So your citation needs to come from something not biased, so I ask for peer review or at least something scientific. That article started by talking about how he got his first job at a pub. Which is the opposite of professional.

There’s nothing indicating that my source was biased, it’s just not a scholarly article. If you believe it is biased then you’ll have to prove that.

It’s true that altruism in animals is rarely observed, but it’s not totally non-existent, and you even admitted it. So you’ve already undermined the premise you use to springboard to your conclusion that this means altruism in humans can’t be traced to natural origins. Further, this conclusion doesn’t even remotely follow from the premise. We don’t even need to examine the final leap, which states that because we don’t know of a natural explanation there must be a supernatural explanation, to throw your thesis in the garbage.

 

[Ophiolite]

so you can't prove your assertion but you want me to prove my assertion?

Now you are just being silly. I don't mind. I like smiling.

The two assertions are in completely different categories. I expressed an opinion that I believe reflects reality. I did not record each interaction with the atheists whose stated views led me to hold that opinion, therefore I cannot demonstrate it. As it is an opinion I was perfectly happy to concede that we may just have had different experiences. However, the implication is that you have encountered atheists on this forum who have demanded a proof of God. It should therefore be quite straightforward for you to provide a link to the posts where they have done that.
Alternatively, simply state that I misunderstood you and that the demands for proof did not occur on this forum and therefore the evidence for the demands is not available to you. If that is the case I shall withdraw my request.

You know you don't need to go off half-cocked in every post.

I mean you cannot prove any of your assertions but you wish for me to prove mine?

I rather thought I was giving you an opportunity to prove your assertion. It seemed likely to me that you would be able to do so. I extended a helping hand. You are free to reject it, though it will make your claim seem less plausible.

And yet you cannot believe that an athiest has asked for proof? When you just did?

Now you are getting confused. Your claim was that atheists had asked for proof of God. That was the claim I was asking about. I never asked you to prove God. I already noted in an earlier post that asking for such proof was a dumb idea.

If we are to have a productive discussion you need to stay more in touch with what you've said.

Now, not only can you not prove your assertions, I would go further in saying none of your assertions are even scientific. As science requires observation to have a hypothesis. Without that there is no scientific method, and without the method, it's not science.

I'm not sure which assertions you are talking about. My assertions in general, my assertions on this forum, my assertions in this thread? Perhaps you would specify clearly which assertion you are referring to.

To help you out, I don't recall saying that any of my assertions in this thread were scientific. If I did, perhaps you could remind me, though I'm not sure what relevance that has. Again, to anticipate a possible point you might raise, I've made plenty of observations about your post content and style. Hope that helps.

 

[createdtoworship]

There’s nothing indicating that my source was biased, it’s just not a scholarly article. If you believe it is biased then you’ll have to prove that.

It’s true that altruism in animals is rarely observed, but it’s not totally non-existent, and you even admitted it. So you’ve already undermined the premise you use to springboard to your conclusion that this means altruism in humans can’t be traced to natural origins. Further, this conclusion doesn’t even remotely follow from the premise. We don’t even need to examine the final leap, which states that because we don’t know of a natural explanation there must be a supernatural explanation, to throw your thesis in the garbage.

no you'll have to prove the guy is not an evolutionist, you among all people believe most people are. So the burden lies on you to prove that bias is gone. Besides you prove my point by admitting "altruism is animals is rarely observed". I admitted altruism existed before I knew the real definition of altruism. See altruism I believe was coined by evolutionists to describe morality in animals, to contradict the exact topic of this thread. But I cannot prove that, it's just that this word is only about a hundred years old, about the time evolution was becoming very popular. 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. So it really is not a good word for this topic in general. It is over generalized in saying, an animal exhibits unselfish behavior. But how can you read the mind of an animal and tell he is doing it out of unselfishness? In conclusion scientifically if theists by and large are the only ones teaching hyper moral things, such as loving your enemy, overcoming evil with good. Living in humility, even when pride is what the world teaches you to be successful. There must be a source for those morals. I provide the only logical source for those morals. God. God answers all the questions as to the origins of those things. And you admit that you have no source other than God. So just give in.

 

[gaara4158]

no you'll have to prove the guy is not an evolutionist, you among all people believe most people are. So the burden lies on you to prove that bias is gone. Besides you prove my point by admitting "altruism is animals is rarely observed". I admitted altruism existed before I knew the real definition of altruism. See altruism I believe was coined by evolutionists to describe morality in animals, to contradict the exact topic of this thread. But I cannot prove that, it's just that this word is only about a hundred years old, about the time evolution was becoming very popular. 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. So it really is not a good word for this topic in general. It is over generalized in saying, an animal exhibits unselfish behavior. But how can you read the mind of an animal and tell he is doing it out of unselfishness? In conclusion scientifically if theists by and large are the only ones teaching hyper moral things, such as loving your enemy, overcoming evil with good. Living in humility, even when pride is what the world teaches you to be successful. There must be a source for those morals. I provide the only logical source for those morals. God. God answers all the questions as to the origins of those things. And you admit that you have no source other than God. So just give in.

First, learn to break up your paragraphs.

Second, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole from which you cannot hope to escape. Now everyone who accepts evolution is biased? That’s an enormous accusation so I’ll be expecting some very serious evidence to support that.

Third, the rest of your post is stream-of-consciousness nonsense. Come correct and we’ll talk more.

 

[createdtoworship]

First, learn to break up your paragraphs.

Second, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole from which you cannot hope to escape. Now everyone who accepts evolution is biased? That’s an enormous accusation so I’ll be expecting some very serious evidence to support that.

Third, the rest of your post is stream-of-consciousness nonsense. Come correct and we’ll talk more.

if you can read the mind of an animal and tell he is doing something selflessly, come correct, and we'll talk more. Or they are not altruistic.

 

[gaara4158]

if you can read the mind of an animal and tell he is doing something selflessly, come correct, and we'll talk more. Or they are not altruistic.

Too easy. If you can read the mind of an animal and tell me he’s not doing something selflessly, you might have a fraction of a point. But as we already established, it doesn’t even matter to your larger point that love must come from God. You still have all your work ahead of you whether you can land this point about animals or not.

 

[createdtoworship]

Too easy. If you can read the mind of an animal and tell me he’s not doing something selflessly, you might have a fraction of a point.

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

But as we already established, it doesn’t even matter to your larger point that love must come from God. You still have all your work ahead of you whether you can land this point about animals or not.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you want to convince someone it doesn't exist, you need to provide evidence that it does not exist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you want to convince someone it doesn't exist, you need to provide evidence that it does not exist.

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.