Where does morality come from?

[variant]

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.

ERV's are evidence for common decent.

Given that you don't read the literature I show you I don't think you have an opinion that I'm bound to respect.

Given that you use wording like "prove" for scientific discussions, it doesn't seem that you read much literature on the subject of science at all (you aren't familiar with the basics).

Which means you aren't ready for a discussion that involves the kind of nuance that would be required to actually criticize anything that I am saying.

Your posts are a tortured muddle between some information you've picked up and the overwhelming obvious bias of someone who made up their mind before consulting any of the facts.

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

evil is a lack of good. So by nature it is not doing what we should And besides, mentioning this fact reveals that you as a skeptic do believe in objective moral truth. For it would not be an evil act to torture babies for fun, if you didn't.

 

[createdtoworship]

ERV's are evidence for common decent.

Given that you don't read the literature I show you I don't think you have an opinion that I'm bound to respect.

Given that you use wording like "prove" for scientific discussions, it doesn't seem that you read much literature on the subject of science at all (you aren't familiar with the basics).

Which means you aren't ready for a discussion that involves the kind of nuance that would be required to actually criticize anything that I am saying.

Your posts are a tortured muddle between some information you've picked up and the overwhelming obvious bias of someone who made up their mind before consulting any of the facts.

so basically you don't have the evidence I asked for in my last post.

that is what I thought.

you have evidence for common decent in ERV's, but you don't have evidence in ERV's for universal common decent,

and I think that is an important distinction that you seem to be purposefully missing.

yes the overwhelming consensus is that ERV's give evidence to common decent, but not the type of common decent that means other animals evolve into other types of animals.

what you see is that the same animals can have different characteristics, longer hair, discollored hair, different eye collor, spots, no spots etc.

but a spotty blonde eyed animal is the same type of animal as a non spotty brown eyed.

when a human has blonde hair, they are not an ape, they are still a human.

You don't say african americans have evolved further and have more pigment that caucasian. Well, you could say that, but it would get you into trouble. So yes, we have evidece of evolution on a micro level, in fact getting over a cold is a small micro evolution. But what we don't see is one animal turning into another animal over long millions of years. Well, at least we have not observed that, and there appears to be no evidence of it. But you can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

evil is a lack of good. So by nature it is not doing what we should And besides, mentioning this fact reveals that you as a skeptic do believe in objective moral truth. For it would not be an evil act to torture babies for fun, if you didn't.

Red Herring. Neither you or the poster you're responding to even mentioned good or evil. You mentioned "love" he mentioned "hate". Bringing up "good vs evil" is a distraction from his question about the existence of "hate".

 

[createdtoworship]

Red Herring. Neither you or the poster you're responding to even mentioned good or evil. You mentioned "love" he mentioned "hate". Bringing up "good vs evil" is a distraction from his question about the existence of "hate".

sorry sir, I am currently ignoring your comments and have ceased from all contact. And you respected that for the most part until recently. But I am sure you can agree to disagree, and you don't need to force your comments on someone who does not appreciate them for what they are worth. I know that you may not get that much action here anymore, but you should think about that before you use the type of debate strategy that you are using, which involves ridiculing and mocking. So take care, I hope all is well in your experience here on CF. (I will wait for the original poster to reply, I am sure He does not feel the same way, and most likely feels I addressed their comment)

 

[Moral Orel]

sorry sir, I am currently ignoring your comments and have ceased from all contact. And you respected that for the most part until recently. But I am sure you can agree to disagree, and you don't need to force your comments on someone who does not appreciate them for what they are worth. I know that you may not get that much action here anymore, but you should think about that before you use the type of debate strategy that you are using, which involves ridiculing and mocking. So take care, I hope all is well in your experience here on CF. (I will wait for the original poster to reply, I am sure He does not feel the same way, and most likely feels I addressed their comment)

I'm not sure what you mean. I never stopped correcting your many, many errors. Lately, I've been mostly just pointing out logical fallacies, which is a big part of your debate strategy. Although, I explain what they are and why you're committing them because I understand them.

 

[variant]

so basically you don't have the evidence I asked for in my last post.

that is what I thought.

you have evidence for common decent in ERV's, but you don't have evidence in ERV's for universal common decent,

and I think that is an important distinction that you seem to be purposefully missing.

No I'm not saying that, so let's chalk a lack of reading comprehension to the list of your faults

I'm not really interested in debating someone who isn't interested in the evidence I present.

yes the overwhelming consensus is that ERV's give evidence to common decent, but not the type of common decent that means other animals evolve into other types of animals.

That's what common decent is.

Some common ancestor gave rise to both humans and chimpanzees.

That relationship can be shown via the evidence of ERV's, and it can also be shown for all creatures on earth and how they relate photogenically.

It backs up the other evidence we have of common ancestry and evolution.

what you see is that the same animals can have different characteristics, longer hair, discollored hair, different eye collor, spots, no spots etc.

but a spotty blonde eyed animal is the same type of animal as a non spotty brown eyed.

when a human has blonde hair, they are not an ape, they are still a human.

You don't say african americans have evolved further and have more pigment that caucasian. Well, you could say that, but it would get you into trouble. So yes, we have evidece of evolution on a micro level, in fact getting over a cold is a small micro evolution. But what we don't see is one animal turning into another animal over long millions of years. Well, at least we have not observed that, and there appears to be no evidence of it. But you can correct me if I am wrong.

You are indeed wrong.

Go read the ERV evidence I presented before, it already showed you are wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you don't seem to grasp the basic language of the debate you are trying to wade into.

"common ancestry" is a basic idea where species in general diverged from common ancestors. It REQUIRES macro evolution because it IS macro evolution. You can not agree to any form of common ancestry and not to macro evolution.

ERV's show evidence of common ancestry because they are insertions at specific cites that are more commonly shared by species that are more closely related. We understand their mechanism for appearing.

For them to be appearing in two species DNA at the exact same spot those species would have to have shared a gene pool.

 

[createdtoworship]

No I'm not saying that, so let's chalk a lack of reading comprehension to the list of your faults

I'm not really interested in debating someone who isn't interested in the evidence I present.



That's what common decent is.

Some common ancestor gave rise to both humans and chimpanzees.

That relationship can be shown via the evidence of ERV's, and it can also be shown for all creatures on earth and how they relate photogenically.

It backs up the other evidence we have of common ancestry and evolution.



You are indeed wrong.

Go read the ERV evidence I presented before, it already showed you are wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you don't seem to grasp the basic language of the debate you are trying to wade into.

"common ancestry" is a basic idea where species in general diverged from common ancestors. It REQUIRES macro evolution because it IS macro evolution. You can not agree to any form of common ancestry and not to macro evolution.

ERV's show evidence of common ancestry because they are insertions at specific cites that are more commonly shared by species that are more closely related. We understand their mechanism for appearing.

For them to be appearing in two species DNA at the exact same spot those species would have to have shared a gene pool.

Well I tried to reason with you sir, so you really just want to belittle and mock. So I will give a you a two week block, if you continue to do this after your block, you will be permanently blocked. If however you apologize, and refrain from this activity, and repost your comment without the flames, I will remove all blocks immediately. It's up to you. Thank you for the response. I am sorry that you are so mad at other peoples viewpoints. But the world is full of different viewpoints so it's important that we are nice.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Which God?

The God of the Bible.

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....

Good questions. Why I accept the Christian God as the truth is a long story (although the fact that only in the Bible does God tell humans that He loves them would be a good place to start).

 

[variant]

Well I tried to reason with you sir, so you really just want to belittle and mock. So I will give a you a two week block, if you continue to do this after your block, you will be permanently blocked. If however you apologize, and refrain from this activity, and repost your comment without the flames, I will remove all blocks immediately. It's up to you. Thank you for the response. I am sorry that you are so mad at other peoples viewpoints. But such is the internet, and it's important to understand that.

It's not my fault that you aren't following what I write and therefore putting words in my mouth.

Sorry you feel bad about it but no.

Feel free to ignore as long as you wish, I don't see your input as valuable.

There are plenty of misinformed creationists that peddle in logical fallacies and bad faith arguments. I will not miss you.

 

[Ken-1122]

evil is a lack of good.

Are you sure? What do you base that on? Perhaps good is a lack of evil.

So by nature it is not doing what we should And besides, mentioning this fact reveals that you as a skeptic do believe in objective moral truth.

No, morality is subjective; not objective

For it would not be an evil act to torture babies for fun, if you didn't.

You are confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

 

[Ken-1122]

The God of the Bible.


Good questions. Why I accept the Christian God as the truth is a long story (although the fact that only in the Bible does God tell humans that He loves them would be a good place to start).

So if I could show you in the Avesta, the Vedas, or some other ancient religious book where it says that their God loves people, you would consider that God to be morally right as well?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you sure? What do you base that on? Perhaps good is a lack of evil.

whenever you see evil it's always a problem of lacking a virtue of some sort. Wars are cause simply because one does not love their enemy for example. Murdering because of anger, is a sin of not loving our neighbor as ourselves. If one simply loved, they would fulfill every moral command. That is why it is the greatest command, to love God and Man.

No, morality is subjective; not objective, What about torture and extreme hatred?

you assume torture is wrong. How do you know it is wrong?

You are confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

when you take objectivism away, you make your point fluid, and have no basis to stand on. For example all I need to say is, torture is wrong for you, but not for others.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are plenty of misinformed creationists that peddle in logical fallacies and bad faith arguments. I will not miss you.

well when no one decides to debate you because you are mean spirited, you will think twice about your rude behavior.

 

[Ken-1122]

whenever you see evil it's always a problem of lacking a virtue of some sort. Wars are cause simply because one does not love their enemy for example.

And friendships are formed because they don’t hate their neighbor

Murdering because of anger, is a sin of not loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Empathy is because we lack hatred for others.

you assume torture is wrong. How do you know it is wrong?

Because it goes against what I have determined to be right

when you take objectivism away, you make your point fluid, and have no basis to stand on. For example all I need to say is, torture is wrong for you, but not for others.

You don’t have to take objectivism away for someone to say that. People will say and believe whatever they want regardless of whether you believe morality is objective or not.

 

[Skreeper]

when you take objectivism away, you make your point fluid, and have no basis to stand on. For example all I need to say is, torture is wrong for you, but not for others.

There are people that believe torture isn't wrong. You, for example.

The people who do believe it's wrong get together and form a group, the ones who disagree are removed from that group.

Welcome to Morality 101.

 

[variant]

well when no one decides to debate you because you are mean spirited, you will think twice about your rude behavior.

It is not mean spirited to expect people to pay attention to what is being said carefully and not expect to have their own personal facts.

So far in my presence you've misrepresented something I've said, dismissed evidence without reading it and said you would write a critical review of it, demonstrated on more than one occasion that you have less than a novices grasp of the material in question, and also that you don't clearly understand the material you are bringing to the discussion.

What you're sensing from me is a lack of respect that comes from seeing someone someone proudly mouthing off about things they clearly don't understand.

 

[createdtoworship]

Because it goes against what I have determined to be right

But who are you to determine what is right and wrong, and why should I care? You are not me. I say this simply to say that when everyone is right in their own eyes, and they attempt to push a subjective morality, there is no reason why anyone should listen to them.

again I ask, why is torture wrong?

originally you assumed everyone would agree with you that it is wrong.

but why, if it is only subjective, would we agree? with you?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is not mean spirited to expect people to pay attention to what is being said carefully and not expect to have their own personal facts.

So far in my presence you've misrepresented something I've said, dismissed evidence without reading it and said you would write a critical review of it, demonstrated on more than one occasion that you have less than a novices grasp of the material in question, and also that you don't clearly understand the material you are bringing to the discussion.

What you're sensing from me is a lack of respect that comes from seeing someone someone proudly mouthing off about things they clearly don't understand.

sir disagreeing, and not understanding are two separate things, as I have posted numerous times. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not make them evil, wrong, stupid or a host of other things that atheists have said here. And this is why you are blocked for a few weeks. However if I see that you are not honoring it, and keep trying to insult, your block will be permanent.

 

[Ken-1122]

But who are you to determine what is right and wrong, and why should I care? You are not me. I say this simply to say that when everyone is right in their own eyes, and they attempt to push a subjective morality, there is no reason why anyone should listen to them.

Think of it this way;
Who is your God to determine what is right and wrong, why should I care? I don’t believe in your God. I say this simply to point out, for your God to determine wrong or right is just as subjective as if I, you, or anybody else determines it; (and according to you) there is no reason why anyone should listen to him.

again I ask, why is torture wrong?

originally you assumed everyone would agree with you that it is wrong.

I never said that, I said it goes against what I have determined to be morally right.

but why, if it is only subjective, would we agree? with you?

Because it makes sense to you. I don’t want you to believe me because I said so, I want you to believe because it makes sense. I don’t want to be your moral dictator, I want you to understand the difference between right and wrong; yourself!