Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,147 Year: 5,404/9,624 Month: 429/323 Week: 69/204 Day: 11/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 267 of 438 (742505)
11-20-2014 9:21 PM


Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is.
Evolution is amoral.
For if it becomes necessary to kill to survive or develop a new species, all that may be considered fair and honorable, can be thrown out the door, the end justifying the means.
If for the present time, toleration is a means of surviving, then sooner or later the survival of the increasing masses will threaten their own survival, demanding a stronger species to reduce the number of competitors.
Evolution ultimately has no rights for anyone to live, or any to have quality of life, or any to claim equality.
The species which survives does so because it can and does and for no other reason. There is no purpose for any species except what happens next.
The laws of probability are the name of the game.

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 11-20-2014 10:17 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 269 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2014 4:16 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 270 by Larni, posted 11-21-2014 4:30 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 271 by JonF, posted 11-21-2014 7:52 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 275 of 438 (742566)
11-22-2014 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NoNukes
11-20-2014 10:17 PM


NoNukes writes:
This is idiotic. Evolution is not planned by humans. Accordingly evolution does not represent or contradict morality. The triceratops are all gone. But nobody human caused that.
That's what I said Evolution is amoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 11-20-2014 10:17 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 11-22-2014 8:11 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 276 of 438 (742567)
11-22-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Tangle
11-21-2014 4:16 AM


Colbard writes:
Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is.
Tangle writes:
Correct. But so what?
Somebody just talked about gravity etc, which are claimed to be amoral/physical laws.
Morality has a law, which has a law giver, that's why Darwin is turning in his grave.
And to be strict, if you are an evolutionist only the second part of your response is acceptable, because there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in evolution, it just is what it is and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2014 4:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 8:39 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 277 of 438 (742569)
11-22-2014 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Larni
11-21-2014 4:30 AM


Larni writes:
It's a sobering thought, isn't it?
"Sobering" is a moral term and cannot be applied scientifically in evolution.
You can say "fearful," or anything an animal reacts with.
Evolutionary creatures don't have "sobering" moments, they have strategies, reasoning, tactics, cunning, memory, instinct, etc. Humans are just advanced animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Larni, posted 11-21-2014 4:30 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Larni, posted 11-23-2014 4:34 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 278 of 438 (742570)
11-22-2014 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by JonF
11-21-2014 7:52 AM


JonF writes:
The process of evolution is amoral. Many evolved organisms, including humans, are not. Because they evolved morality.
There is no 'scientific' proof of morality or of any moral laws or associated law giver such as God.
There is no such thing as morality in evolution, although there are accepted strategies of behavior for the survival of the species, which some term morality.
Evolution must remain amoral, otherwise it is not alone in the game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by JonF, posted 11-21-2014 7:52 AM JonF has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 279 of 438 (742571)
11-22-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
11-21-2014 4:13 PM


Re: Good and Bad
Catsci writes:
Let's say we have two different people confronted with the same moral dilemma. I dunno, they stumble across an injured woman laying on the side of the road.
Person 1's immediate thoughts/instinct is to make sure the woman is okay and to help in any way they can.
Person 2's immediate thoughts/instinct is to capitalize on the situation and take her purse from her and steal her money.
Then they both think about it for a bit, and they both decide that they should help her.
Wouldn't you say that Person 1 is a more moral person than Person 2?
According to evolution neither are moral or immoral, and are both playing a role in the eventual survival of a fitter species. nice feelings are just hormonal responses which in the long run help the species or ruin it, depending on chance and circumstances alone.
Both are acting on inbred or accumulated behaviors, and neither can be held accountable for their actions, it is totally natural.
Edited by Colbard, : add

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-21-2014 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2014 2:25 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 305 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-22-2014 2:33 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 282 of 438 (742581)
11-22-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Tangle
11-22-2014 8:39 AM


Tangle writes:
yes, we both agree that evolution has no morality but I asked you why that mattered and I'm so far no clearer why you think it does.
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.
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.
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.
If humans claim that there is "right and wrong," then they are either deluded or evolution is wrong, because morals are spiritual in value, which point to spiritual authority, for which science and evolution do not account for.
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.
Any morality which is not everlasting, permanent and unchangeable cannot be a moral, but only an instruction or order of the time. For a moral to exist, it has to be able to stand alone for ever, and also to have been there from eternity, otherwise it is only a temporary changeable notion, a circumstantial event, which is what evolution is. A true moral cannot change due to circumstance either.
True morality points to an everlasting law giver of morals.
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.
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.
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.
For a long time - 1200 odd years, we had many intelligent people fleeing the Papacy, because it was breaking the moral laws of God in every way while claiming to uphold them.
The long saga between good and evil has been going on for thousands of years, and is proof of a moral battle. History proves it.
However, if this is just the saga of invented religions, then in essence we cannot argue about the issues of good and evil, and morals, which do not exist by nature or the evidence provided in the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 8:39 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 10:08 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2014 11:03 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 284 of 438 (742587)
11-22-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Theodoric
11-22-2014 10:08 AM


Theodoric writes:
So all you want to do is preach and attack Catholics? Please go some place mor appropriate for that. This is in a science forum. In other words not a proper venue for preaching.
The topic of the thread calls into question the issue of morals, which is not a subject of evolution, but of religion.
You don't have to explain to the world what is threatening you, because no one is attacking you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 10:08 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Theodoric, posted 11-22-2014 10:44 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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 3501 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

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3501 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