Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 286 of 438 (742607)
11-22-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Colbard
11-22-2014 9:47 AM


Evolution by its nature does not have any morals, so morals can never belong to any of its results such as human beings, which you say are responsible for morals.
You've made a bald, unsupported assertion - which is a logic error and in any case is empirically wrong. We find moral behaviour amongst other evolved creatures such as apes.
If there are no morals then a human being could not be responsible for creating something that does not exist in the process of their existence.
There ARE morals and humans have defined the emotions that drive our ethical and unethical behaviour morality.
Morals say that there is right and wrong. If people say that, then that is evidence of something which evolution does not have and neither claims to have. A thorn for the sad and unwashed mummy's boy - Charles Darwin.
This is just gibberish. btw - why do creationists obsess about Darwin as though the guy that discovered evolution is responsible for creating it? Wallace came up with the idea at the same time and if neither of them had it would be someone else - that's because it's a observation of the natural world like finding another planet, not an invention.
If there is no spiritual authority on morals, then human beings are their own authority on morals, which means that it is just a notion of human beings, as part of a process in evolution, and a future which may dispense with those notions called morals by human beings, once again confirming the lack of base for any permanent morality.
With the exception of conflating evolution to morality and the nonsense about dispensing with morality - the rest is correct. Man defines morality and what we think is right and wrong changes over time. This is an obvious truism. Over time our societies become less punitive, less discriminatory and generally fairer. This is a secular, not religious, process.
Any morality which is not everlasting, permanent and unchangeable cannot be a moral,
Why not? (and btw, yes it can - otherwise we'd still all have slaves and be stoning women for being raped)
For a moral to exist, it has to be able to stand alone for ever,
No it doesn't - else prove it.
True morality points to an everlasting law giver of morals.
Nope. And if by this 'everlasting law giver of morals' you mean the Christian God, then you need to explain the appalling immoral acts he perpetrates in the bible.
If not, and morals are just human, then these will change with each passing generation, and so can never be right or wrong in the true and absolute sense.
More or less correct - though it's hard to imagine a time when the destruction of all living things by deliberately flooding the earth would be regarded as a moral act.
If there are no absolute truths, then the morals of humans will be circumstantial and individually variant. So for some people, it will be OK to burn your child to a molten image, and to others not.
Well yes and that has happened in the past - the Aztecs believed the human sacrifice of their children was not just a moral act but a necessary one to please their gods. Luckily, as I said, man-made, secular laws based on fairness and the 'do no harm' principal is ridding the world of the nastier religious superstition and practices.
The evidence of absolute morals comes from their functionality with life, and there are no greater laws than the ten given to Moses of Divine origin. These laws provide the safety framework for every descent country. Hence we don't have Christians fleeing to go to Atheist Russia or China, or Islamic countries, but it's the other way around. Oppressed people seek freedom.
Do you truly believe that people of other religions in other countries are immoral? Do you think that atheists can not behave morally?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 9:47 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:20 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 291 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:28 AM Tangle has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 287 of 438 (742608)
11-22-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Theodoric
11-22-2014 10:44 AM


theodoric writes:
No it I not a religious subject. People without religion have morals. Morals evolved in human beings. Moral values continue to evolve.
You speak as I evolution is some sort of thing. It is change over time.
Can you show that morals have not evolved.
Morals don't evolve, their application may evolve, but they cannot evolve, because they are absolute. You can't half steal. Stealing is stealing.
Morality is about good and bad, which in your world are subjective, and therefor no better than notions of the day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 10:44 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 11:23 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 290 by jar, posted 11-22-2014 11:26 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 288 of 438 (742609)
11-22-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Tangle
11-22-2014 11:03 AM


Tangle,
You are confusing your feelings about what goes on in the world with morals.
There is nothing moral or immoral about any event under evolution, otherwise you are dealing with an evolution with religious intent.
Just because a majority of people may be getting feelings about certain behaviors does not make it a moral issue, because that can all change. We know that very educated and sensible men indulge themselves in killing campaigns called missions in war. Tours of duty. So killing is part of your morality.
And there is nothing wrong with mass exterminations in evolution, because it is part of the process of development by chance.
You may like to look at the actions of religious bodies as necessary to develop our upgraded society, rather than a despicable murderous history.
It seems to me that you are an oversensitive evolutionist which will probably be exterminated by a stronger species shortly.
There is no right and wrong in evolution, just WHATEVER is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:03 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 11:35 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:57 AM Colbard has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 289 of 438 (742611)
11-22-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:09 AM


Your morals are subjective also. To claim otherwise is a lie. Maybe a lie to yourself but still a lie.
Slavery was morally ok at one time. Your bible says so. Do you think it is morally good?
If morals are not evolved why there many different moral codes? Even among different Christian sects?
which in your world are subjective, and therefor no better than notions of the day.
You do not know me so please do not presume to. I have a very strong moral code by which I live my life. It does not change from day to day. I will put my atheist moral code up against yours any day. It may be different but probably no better or worse. To think that everyone should live by your moral code us the height of hubris.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:09 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:37 AM Theodoric has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 290 of 438 (742612)
11-22-2014 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:09 AM


but of course morals do evolve
Of course morals do evolve and Thank God, are not absolute least we be stuck with merely what Jesus considered moral. Fortunately we have advanced since Jesus time; we no longer say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" we say "You cannot stone people period."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:09 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 291 of 438 (742613)
11-22-2014 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Tangle
11-22-2014 11:03 AM


Tangle writes:
Nope. And if by this 'everlasting law giver of morals' you mean the Christian God, then you need to explain the appalling immoral acts he perpetrates in the bible.
Oh, you mean getting rid of wankers who burn their children?
Or do you mean that bloke who slept with a cow?
So you would like God to be more fickle and accommodating of pedos and the likes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:03 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:40 AM Colbard has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 292 of 438 (742615)
11-22-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:20 AM


Maybe you just don't get it. No one says evolution has morals. That would be stupid because evolution is not a thing. It cannot have morals because does not have characteristics like that. Evolution does not have a plan. Evolution is a process, it just happens. Trying to give it some sort of sentience, or pointing out it has no sentience does not help your argument
Your argument is disingenuous at best. You are arguing that since evolution does not have morals, morals can not evolve. That attempt at logic is so ridiculous it hardly merits addressing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:20 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 293 of 438 (742616)
11-22-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Theodoric
11-22-2014 11:23 AM


Theodoric writes:
Your morals are subjective also. To claim otherwise is a lie. Maybe a lie to yourself but still a lie.
Slavery was morally ok at one time. Your bible says so. Do you think it is morally good?
If morals are not evolved why there many different moral codes? Even among different Christian sects?
You do not know me so please do not presume to. I have a very strong moral code by which I live my life. It does not change from day to day. I will put my atheist moral code up against yours any day. It may be different but probably no better or worse. To think that everyone should live by your moral code us the height of hubris.
Who is attacking you? Why are you suddenly so defensive? I am not talking about you at all, but the general principles of the topic. This isn't about you or me, so why the personal notes?
I don't want to know your shame thank you, but the word "hubris" gives you away entirely. I'm not sure I want to reply to you any longer, just so you know why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 11:23 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 11:47 AM Colbard has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 294 of 438 (742617)
11-22-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:28 AM


Colbard writes:
Oh, you mean getting rid of wankers who burn their children?
Or do you mean that bloke who slept with a cow?
So you would like God to be more fickle and accommodating of pedos and the likes?
Your thought processes are mess.
I've no idea why you think that your god would intervene between man and cow but not to prevent, say, the holocaust, but that is not at issue. The question is how can a moral god perform an immoral act such as killing all life on the planet?
I also want to have an answer to whether you think that those who have not heard in your god or don't believe in any god at all can be moral?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:28 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:51 AM Tangle has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 295 of 438 (742618)
11-22-2014 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:37 AM


You are aware that we can read your previous posts aren't you.
Oh yeah nice dodge so you dont have to address my post in any meaningful way.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:37 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 296 of 438 (742619)
11-22-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Tangle
11-22-2014 11:40 AM


Tangle writes:
Your thought processes are mess.
I've no idea why you think that your god would intervene between man and cow but not to prevent, say, the holocaust, but that is not at issue. The question is how can a moral god perform an immoral act such as killing all life on the planet?
I also want to have an answer to whether you think that those who have not heard in your god or don't believe in any god at all can be moral?
So now, because young Tangle does not have answers to why suffering is allowed, suddenly out comes the blame finger and the down god thumb.
Well according to the theory of evolution and scientific evidence, you don't have a god to blame anything on. Who said people who have not heard about God can't be moral?
If you want to study religion you'll have to differentiate between what the Bible says and what religions say. Note the large differences as day is to night.
Then you will know what I mean about the falsehoods in both religions and science, and the elements of truth ion both, and that true science is actually true religion as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 12:07 PM Colbard has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 297 of 438 (742622)
11-22-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:20 AM


You are confusing your feelings about what goes on in the world with morals.
I am not confusing the two, I'm claiming that the two are the same. Morality and immorality are behaviours which we observe 'going on in the world'
There is nothing moral or immoral about any event under evolution,
As we all wholeheartedly admit - this is correct.
otherwise you are dealing with an evolution with religious intent.
evolution has no intent so we agree that you can put that back in its box.
Just because a majority of people may be getting feelings about certain behaviors does not make it a moral issue, because that can all change. We know that very educated and sensible men indulge themselves in killing campaigns called missions in war. Tours of duty. So killing is part of your morality.
Yes bad people can do bad things, that's why we label them BAD. Everybody living under a despot knows that he is bad. Killing is definitely part of our morality. We call some killings moral and some immoral depending on time, culture and circumstance. Your biblical god thought it was ok to kill neighbouring tribes, I'm guessing that the neighbouring tribes thought otherwise.
And there is nothing wrong with mass exterminations in evolution, because it is part of the process of development by chance.
Correct, but this is getting a bit tedious. Every time you say that evolution is amoral I'm going to agree with you - ok? The reason is that it lacks agency. It's no more moral/immoral than the car that kills a pedestrian or the cat that kills a mouse.
It seems to me that you are an oversensitive evolutionist which will probably be exterminated by a stronger species shortly.
Silly
There is no right and wrong in evolution, just WHATEVER is.
correct

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:20 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 12:08 PM Tangle has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 298 of 438 (742623)
11-22-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Theodoric
11-22-2014 11:47 AM


Theodoric writes:
You are aware that we can read your previous posts aren't you.
Oh yeah nice dodge so you don't have to address my post in any meaningful way.
If you did not bother coloring the others motives, then you'd probably have more clout. Just chill out a bit...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 11:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 299 of 438 (742624)
11-22-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:51 AM


Colbard writes:
So now, because young Tangle does not have answers to why suffering is allowed, suddenly out comes the blame finger and the down god thumb.
As it happens I do have an answer why suffering happens (not is 'allowed' to happen - that implies agency again) but you have never asked that question. It is however, the hardest question to ask of a someone who believes in a loving god - so hard that no answer has ever satisfied anyone.
Well according to the theory of evolution and scientific evidence, you don't have a god to blame anything on. Who said people who have not heard about God can't be moral?
Of course there's no god to blame it on - but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution just tells us how life on earth evolved; that's got zip to do with whether there's a god or not.
If you want to study religion you'll have to differentiate between what the Bible says and what religions say. Note the large differences as day is to night.
Then you will know what I mean about the falsehoods in both religions and science, and the elements of truth ion both, and that true science is actually true religion as well.
I'm afraid I will never know what you mean unless you can start to string sentences together that have logical meaning. Why don't you stop posting for a while and think about how to make a rational case for the existence of an absolute morality that relies upon a god when we can easily observe that there is no such thing.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:51 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 12:25 PM Tangle has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 300 of 438 (742625)
11-22-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Tangle
11-22-2014 11:57 AM


If you truly believe in evolution you can't accuse the God of Christians for anything because he does not exist.
Every argument against God is bringing him back to your reality.
You can't even afford to call yourself an atheist, because that is saying you don't believe in someone that actually exists.
The perfect atheist would never call himself one and never mention or complain about God or any of history of God.
So a genuine evolutionist does not teach morals at home to his or her children, they can only mention physical or social consequences of certain behaviors, and their own preferences as parents.
A dictator is not "bad" he just has a different instinct. People cannot be good or bad just different in behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 12:26 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 303 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-22-2014 12:54 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 307 by jar, posted 11-22-2014 3:01 PM Colbard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024