Morality without god

By traits, Mendel was focused on quantative attributes inherited by a single locus.You don't know what you are talking about.

No way.
Lame.That is illogical reasoning and a ridiculous personal point of view with absolutely no referenes or sources to back you up.

You already asked for sources. I gave them. It is not my fault if you did not bother to open even one link.Here they are again:http://business.xtu.edu.cn:8055/...txtnews20120409012033.pdfhttp://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.htmlDoing Well By Doing Good; Agricultural Research: Feeding and Greening the World
Derek E. Tribe
Pluto Press
ISBN 13: 9780949138729http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/...cts/Spring02/Holt/enlightened.htmlDawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). Population genetics. New Biology, 18, 34-51.Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16.Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52.Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The theory of evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

These are not just personal points of view.They are held by a large number of social behaviorists, biologists, and economists.You, yourself, have mentioned game theory, so you should already be aware of this. Since you aren't, I wonder why you would have mentioned Nash at all. You shouldn't pretend to have a perspective on subjects you are ignorant about.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

wtf are you talking about?What makes me dumb for admitting a position that I have always held? Did you not read my conversation about one brother dying for another?Do you not understand the basics of the conversation?Gender has little to do with altruism, with the exception of securing possible mates (holding the door for someone, paying for dinner, ect.)

Taq writesBertot writes Well this statement makes absolutely (no pun intended) no sense, since it did not address a single point I made. IOWs you did not deal with the issues directlyOnly reality and reason will allow you to come up with a valid solution. What a person believes has nothing to with what reality and resson will allowTaq writesBertot writes With due respect, try and exercise atleast some semblance of common sense. Without an eternal God, you would not know what moral or immoral, were or were not. Thats the point.Example, How does Mr Dawkins know that God is evil. He calls God evil, but he doesnt have a platform from which to make a conclusionHow would you know whether an eternal God was making an immoral decision?Taq writes Bertot writes Initially you start with what reason ad reality will allow from a logical standpointCalling a tree doesnt make it a tree, thats just what you call it. It is what it is, whatever that isWithout all the information to make an absolute decision, morality is just arbitrary reactions by different people, animals and plants in diifferent places for different reasonsNo particular thing could be considered right or wrong. Now you can call it whatever you want, but that doesnt make it that especially if other information could be gahtered to demonstrate it otherwiseReality and reason wont misdirect you, personal opinions willDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

In response to your question, "what makes you dumb," is that you come here confident that you can deny facts when they face your nonsense down.You previously believed that you could successfully confront the Bible, simply by denying the truth and trying to cloud issues with digressions, or re-focusing your response on some irrelevent minor detail in the information that was brought to your attention.That is unquestionably what makes you dumb.But I also suspect you have experienced easy pickings with Christians who could not answer you as well as they might have.
You are what christians call a Bible Basher.
You think like people like Bill Maher.You pick an unworthy opponent, perhaps a die hard YEC or an newbie christian, and you are over confident, because it has been so easy for Bible Bashers.That was before the Theistic Evolution Christians, like myself, have shown you indisputably, that Genesis is scientifically and academically correct.You are even dumb enough to dispute this, which has allowed me to lay out the whole of the Theistic Interpretation here.That clearly dmonstrated to everyone who is intellectually honest, that the Bible can be read with academic and scientific supoort.Those intellectually honest readers lurking and reading your nonsense and the science sourced interpretations of Genesis must admit Theistic Evolution has a case.If one is disposed to picking up those TE arguments, and accepting them, they are immune to atheist bible bashing ridicule.
They are now armed with the truth of divine revelations well ahead of science and its recent discoveries.The science references which I provide in every post in regard to every verse in Genesis makes it valid to say science supports the Bible, though anyone can nay say things, as you do.
But that is dumb.
Billions of Christians respect the Bible.Nevertheless, the science sources reference the information in what Genesis actually says.
Unlike in the past, people like Bill Maher, you, all the other bible bashers here, have no ridicule at their disposal anymore, only their bias for Atheism.They are naked their blaspheme against admitting there is a rational case for the Bible and what it says.Dumb is as dumb does.

You have fully convinced us of this.
You can stop now.

I think so.
He is acting dumb.And althought you would like to let me know how frustrated, angry, and totally rooked you feel in confronting me with your smug superior self right attitude that was FAIL, you are really just showing yourself to be a poor sport at one and the same time.

We have argued that morality exists and that it is relative.
While you keep on saying that without god morality is not absolute.
So we just shrug and nod because we agree that morality isn't absolute.
Insisting that morality must be absolute whilst observing that it isn't, can only prove to you that god doesn't actually exist.It seems to me that you've painted yourself into a corner.(And we're all still waiting for your description of what an absolute morality would look like if it existed.)

No, no. Seriously - you can stop now.And why do you keep posting empty quotes?
Oh wait - I know why.

epic fail.

I think you are still conflating one's genes with one's 'self' when they are quite palpably not the same thing at all.At the very core of the idea of 'selfish genes lies the idea that individuals do not consistently do things for the good of their species, their group, or their families, or even themselves. They instead consistently do things that are likely to facilitate the ongoing propagation of the genes (or copies of the genes) they carry. Giving your life so that another may live (whether related or not) is a selfless act practically by definition. Because it sacrifices the 'self' in question to death such that somebody else can carry on living.To describe such acts as "selfless" is not to deny that this behaviour is ultimately derived from selfish genes. Instead the description of such acts as "selfless" is simply derived from the fact that the genes of another (even the most closely related) do not constitute the "self" that has been sacrificed.

Nowhere have you shown this. Sure he does. That platform is human morality where genocide is immoral. God ordered genocide, therefore God is immoral. It's not that hard to figure out. You tell me. If you can't determine if God's commandments are moral, then how can you claim that God is moral? It isn't arbitrary. Humans have the ability to empathize and understand the consequence of their actions. From those abilities we derive our morality. It is hardly arbitrary. It is your personal opinion that God is moral, and that the specific God you believe in is real. On the other had, we can use empathy along with reason to find moral rules without needing to reference a single deity.

Tangle writes Dawn Bertot writes: Try and approach this logically. For any morality to exist, relative or otherwise, you would first need to have a standard, above and beyond yourself. Any tyro should be able to see this very simple logical problem and pointA perspective (standard)from your own perspective, wont work because you exist in an enviornment where all things are equal for yourself and your neighborly animal and plant friends.That being the case the, proclamations and edicts of your alledged morality would need to be consistent for all parties concerned. If you have a standard that says its not ok to kill and eat another human being for consumption, but it is ok to do this to animals, then all you have demonstrated is that your "morality" is inconsistent and that it is not valid because you have only made it right or wrong when it applies to yourselfNow it shouldnt take an intellectual to figure out that very simple pointYou first need to explain why your morality is actually (literally) right or wrong, when it doesnt apply to all species consistently and why it is actually and literally right and wrong, when it is derived from no other source than yourselfCan you do this?Tangle writes Bertot writes: Again I dont need to demonstrate the existence of God, to demonstrate that you dont have an actual morality, right or wrong. Reality does this for meTangle writesBertot writes: Im not the one that needs to do the painting, you doTangle writes (And we're all still waiting for your description of what an absolute morality would look like if it existed.)Bertot writes: Ive explained this to many times to mention. It would be a morality, the likes of which, no more information could be added toThe likes of which no more information could change the course of his edics, hence absoluteDawn Bertot