Morality (1 Viewer)

[Stringer Bell]

Errrrrr............. what cult am I a part of?

Christianity.

Also, animals with little morality have as yet still survived. It is possible to rule without morality, e.g. totalitarian rule with an iron fist. Morality is subjective, changing from society to society in it's subtleties, so I believe it goes far beyond the mere constraints and limitations of evolutionary biology.

Haha...what have the doctors told you about using your 'inside voice' in public discussions?

And jeez, I just showed what I thought was the purpose of morality above. I support morality, so don't accuse me of being some immoral lunatic of pure evil.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Inside voice next time. Clear?

 

[mirakon]

Christianity.



Haha...what have the doctors told you about using your 'inside voice' in public discussions?



You clearly have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Inside voice next time. Clear?

I'm not Christian. Where did you get that idea from? And how is that in any way relevant to these posts? Oh and instead of just insulting me perhaps try to actually logically refute my arguments. Perhaps this would be more appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[Omar-Comin]

Errrrrr............. what cult am I a part of?

Also, animals with little morality have as yet still survived. It is possible to rule without morality, e.g. totalitarian rule with an iron fist. Morality is subjective, changing from society to society in it's subtleties, so I believe it goes far beyond the mere constraints and limitations of evolutionary biology.

And jeez, I just showed what I thought was the purpose of morality above. I support morality, so don't accuse me of being some immoral lunatic of pure evil.

well, you've certainly established yourself as a pea brained white noise machine.

Do lions eat their babies and kill their tribe? do monkeys, do sharks, do birds?...no you deadbeat, they exhibit similar behavior to humans, yes of course every now and then individuals murder others when defending territory or competing for mates...but on the whole their exists evolved 'morals' within the species.
I mean what makes you think alturistic reciprocity is incompatible with evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation.
Seriously go take you Bible-thumping 'eat the flesh of Jesus' rubbish elsewhere.

 

[mirakon]

well, you've certainly established yourself as a pea brained white noise machine.

Do lions eat their babies and kill their tribe? do monkeys, do sharks, do birds?...no you deadbeat, they exhibit similar behavior to humans, yes of course every now and then individuals murder others when defending territory or competing for mates...but on the whole their exists evolved 'morals' within the species.
I mean what makes you think alturistic reciprocity is incompatible with evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation.
Seriously go take you Bible-thumping 'eat the flesh of Jesus' rubbish elsewhere.

So, you're saying something as subjective as morality, something that changes from place to place is linked with evolutionary biology. Okay, look it would be much easier if you defined morality. Is it as simple as just altruism?

Also, doesn't the competition between animals for mates and territory, indicate to a continuous power struggle. Doesn't this in fact support my above theory?

 

[Stringer Bell]

I'm not Christian. Where did you get that idea from? And how is that in any way relevant to these posts?

Uh, stop denying it, everyone has read what you wrote in the Theology and God threads. It is relevant because it demonstrates your complete non understanding of morality, and your inability to grasp even the most basic of scientific ideas (i.e evolution).

 

[lolokay]

oh dear trolls!

 

[mirakon]

Uh, stop denying it, everyone has read what you wrote in the Theology and God threads. It is relevant because it demonstrates your complete non understanding of morality, and your inability to grasp even the most basic of scientific ideas (i.e evolution).

Just because I believe in a God it doesn't mean I'm Christian. I could be believing in a Spinozan God for instance.

Also, how does that in anyway reflect on a lack of understanding on morality.

And also, I know who you are........ad infinitum!

 

[Omar-Comin]

Just because I believe in a God it doesn't mean I'm Christian. I could be believing in a Spinozan God for instance.

Also, how does that in anyway reflect on a lack of understanding on morality.

And also, I know who you are........ad infinitum!

You believe morality is exogenous, we were 'commanded' 'unsick' so to speak.
whereas the theory of evolution posits that morality is endogenous.

 

[mirakon]

You believe morality is exogenous, we were 'commanded' 'unsick' so to speak.
whereas the theory of evolution posits that morality is endogenous.

I am not Christian. What don't you get about that? Stop trying to prove me wrong by spreading a lie.

 

[Stringer Bell]

So, you're saying something as subjective as morality, something that changes from place to place is linked with evolutionary biology. Okay, look it would be much easier if you defined morality. Is it as simple as just altruism?

Also, doesn't the competition between animals for mates and territory, indicate to a continuous power struggle. Doesn't this in fact support my above theory?

Uh, Humans have evolved (through cultural, natural and group selection) a very high form of morality. Just because lower level animals do not exhibit the same complexity doesn't suggest 'Morality isn't linked to evolutionary biology'. Uh, infact it supports it 100%, in the same way the contrast of primitive pin eyes in crustations and complex eyes in humans supports an evolutionary explanation of sight. But again, to argue against you would be akin to arguing with a monkey on merits of special relativitey.

 

[mirakon]

Uh, Humans have evolved (through cultural, natural and group selection) a very high form of morality. Just because lower level animals do not exhibit the same complexity doesn't suggest 'Morality isn't linked to evolutionary biology'. Uh, infact it supports it 100%, in the same way the contrast of primitive pin eyes in crustations and complex eyes in humans supports an evolutionary explanation of sight. But again, to argue against you would be akin to arguing with a monkey on merits of special relativitey.

So morality is for self-survival? Doesn't this mean that the underlying purpose of your morality is somewhat selfish. Doesn't this contradict your definition that morality is supposed to suppress selfishness, rather than reinforce it.

Also, you fail to realise morality differs from person to person, so how can you assume the whole species has developed a high form of morality. Humans are perhaps the most selfish and immoral of all animals.

 

[Stringer Bell]

So morality is for self-survival? Doesn't this mean that the underlying purpose of your morality is somewhat selfish. Doesn't this contradict your definition that morality is supposed to suppress selfishness, rather than reinforce it.

Also, you fail to realise morality differs from person to person, so how can you assume the whole species has developed a high form of morality. Humans are perhaps the most selfish and immoral of all animals.

Just because being moral benefits the individual doesn't mean the game is zero sum, uh, that's actually the hole fucking point of morality, you dunce, it of mutual benefit, a reciprocal symbiosis.

A pack of wolves work together to hunt. Each benefits from the increased food due to the increased hunter power, facilitated by team work. Each realizes that it is in their own self interest to abide by the moral rules of the group.

Go read up on group selection you stultified potato head.

 

[mirakon]

Just because being moral benefits the individual doesn't mean the game is zero sum, uh, that's actually the hole fucking point of morality, you dunce, it of mutual benefit, a reciprocal symbiosis.

A pack of wolves work together to hunt. Each benefits from the increased food due to the increased hunter power, facilitated by team work. Each realizes that it is in their own self interest to abide by the moral rules of the group.

That's the point. You're saying morality is ultimately for self-interest, but that's contradictory. Isn't self-interest, non-altruistic and therefore immoral?

 

[Omar-Comin]

This is what you spewed out in the 'why are atheists always attacking Christianity' Thread

From my understanding, evolution is based purely on physical changes over time, the development in behaviour being due to development of the brain and neurology in the organism. Morality is a social construct, a concept and is not a result of something physical and hence can't be a product of evolution.

Values, morality are defined by the society we live in, we can't be 'born' with them. For example different societies place different values on different things (e.g someone earlier claimed that many religious values conflict with their own values).

If we were born with values and morals as you claim as a result of evolution everyone would have the same morals and values to start with and these conflicts wouldn't be so widespread.

In addition you fail to realise the difference between social intelligence and morality. Social intelligence requires you to defy morality in many instances. Politicians are high in social intelligence, but they aren't all necessarily moral people for example.

Explain to me the biological processes by which people are born to know the difference between right and wrong. People are taught what's right and wrong by the society they grow up in, they don't automatically know it out of the womb. Evolutionary processes are changes over a long period of time, the morals of society whereas change rapidly from year to year, decade to decade, place to place.

Morality is ever changing. The values of society are ever-changing. Such topics are completely subjective there is no such thing as definitive 'right' or 'wrong' behavioru and therefore cannot be explained objectively in reference to the physical changes that are results of evolution.

Also, how do you define sophistication? Is morality really sophistication? Just because humans have it does it make it a quality of sophistication? How do you know it's not one of the traits we haven't evolved in? How do you know evolution is a fact in the first place?
Also, please provide a post with all the evidence you can that supports evolution, so I can attempt to deconstruct it.
I have to go now, so I look forward to continuing the debate later.
Bye!

I think its safe to say that your understanding of evolution is utterly and disgustingly non-existent, anyone who wasn't born into, and home-schooled by, an ultra-fundamentalist bible thumping family, would never assert the rubbish above.

 

[mirakon]

This is what you spewed out in the 'why are atheists always attacking Christianity' Thread


I think its safe to say that your understanding of evolution is utterly and disgustingly non-existent, anyone who wasn't born into, and home-schooled by, an ultra-fundamentalist bible thumping family, would never assert the rubbish above.

a) You have not proved any of the above wrong, you just disagree with it.
b) What's with your insistence I am Christian. I'm not you fool. Get over it.
c) It's a different thread from several months ago, my opinions have changed since then.

 

[Omar-Comin]

That's the point. You're saying morality is ultimately for self-interest, but that's contradictory. Isn't self-interest, non-altruistic and therefore immoral?

So your saying its 'immoral' for someone to help a drowning baby if they have any interest in the baby surviving, they must want the baby to die before it becomes 'moral' to intervene.
Well there you have it folks, the logic of the Christian mind.
Deeply disturbing.

 

[mirakon]

So your saying its 'immoral' for someone to help a drowning baby if they have any interest in the baby surviving, they must want the baby to die before it becomes 'moral' to intervene.
Well there you have it folks, the logic of the Christian mind.
Deeply disturbing.

No what I'm saying is some people may only save the baby as a credit to their own reputation. Also, I am not Christian you douche, the fact that I can't get such a simple fact through your head is an indication that you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sadiah]

Seriously, I hate the fact that threads that start off interesting end up in religious quarrels. I mean, who cares if the OP is Christain, Muslim, Jewish, whatever - the thread ain't about religion, it's about morality.

Stupid people

 

[Omar-Comin]

No what I'm saying is some people may only save the baby as a credit to their own reputation. Also, I am not Christian you douche, the fact that I can't get such a simple fact through your head is an indication that you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

But you asserted that anything that is motivated by self-interest is immoral....you also asserted that moral actions should be taken over immoral actions.
Putting these two Bible-boy pieces of logic together and we get:

-Saving a baby from drowning out of self-interest is 'immoral', not saving a baby despite self-interest is 'moral'.

Thus you would have it that the baby drowned.
Well at least your whole 'we must let an innocent man (Jesus) be executed to save us' thinking is compatible with this disgusting doctrine.

 

[mirakon]

But you asserted that anything that is motivated by self-interest is immoral.

No that was actually Stringer Bell's definiton. So yeah, you proved your own guy wrong. I was merely using it to steer you guys into realising how ridiculous your entire arguments were.

'Morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress selfishness and make social life possible.' Stringer Bell's definiton.