religion

[paulgiamatti]

Did I say "my schools"? Do I really need to quote myself?

[G13]

Hairy marine mammals aren't dolphins. That's the thing about evolution that is hardest for a creationist to grasp. There's no such thing as a transition species, only other species.

Huh?

Cite one example of new genetic code (that isn't gibberish) that sprang up out of a mutation or nothing? New existing genetic code that creates a completely new species that has never been seen before. Just give me one example. Not even that dipshit Dawkins can cite one example because not even one example exists

How does that work you lying fucking fraud

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I'm getting a headache trying to reply to five people on my phone. I'll come back when I get home in three hours.

[Glenzig]

Did I say "my schools"? Do I really need to quote myself?

Probably not what you meant. You used "our" scools followed by "on our side" in the next sentence. It appeared that you meant it to carry the same meaning. Probably not though. Sorry. My bad.

[G13]

No such thing as a transition species? Hmmm. How does one kind of animal change into another then? How did a water breathing fish change into an oxygen breathing mamal?

I thought we all came from some gob of cells that crawled out of the ocean or whatever the new BS theory is this week

Life miraculously came about from some primordial goo that got struck by lighting or whatever other BS theory these frauds try to push on the public. Now there is no such thing as transitional fossils or species because ..... why? The entire BS theory of the religion of Evolution revolves around Transitional Species yet now (because there is ZERO fossil evidence to prove it) they conveniently don't need to exist. Got it

BTW Piltdown Man = Proven Fossil Hoax

But nah, these scientists would NEVER LIE. Would never fudge data to push lies and agendas. They would NEVER do that.

[RobotElvis]

I thought we all came from some gob of cells that crawled out of the ocean or whatever the new BS theory is this week

Life miraculously came about from some primordial goo that got struck by lighting or whatever other BS theory these frauds try to push on the public. Now there is no such thing as transitional fossils or species because ..... why? The entire BS theory of the religion of Evolution revolves around Transitional Species yet now (because there is ZERO fossil evidence to prove it) they conveniently don't need to exist. Got it

BTW Piltdown Man = Proven Fossil Hoax

But nah, these scientists would NEVER LIE. Would never fudge data to push lies and agendas. They would NEVER do that.

And if you dogmatically believe a lie, and tell people "you just aren't smart enough to get it man!" Then how are you better than the religious person who only uses "irrationality and emotion" to guide his life?

Evolution = religion plain and simple.

Btw you in this context refers to evolutionists not G13

[paulgiamatti]

Evolution = religion plain and simple.

You can say it as much as you want, but all you're doing is disqualifying yourself from rational conversation. Like I just said, if you want to broadcast this kind of anti-thought, go right ahead. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Just don't come crying to me when no one's willing to take you seriously or give you the chance to attempt a valid argument.

[greenblze420]

jfc 51 pages off some shit I wrote drunk and high as fk... how many retards does it take to make a 51 page thread .... just made 10k in 4 weeks doing what I want to while yall are trying 2 argue life over a computer .... fucking sad

[Ahldagor]

jfc 51 pages off some shit I wrote drunk and high as fk... how many retards does it take to make a 51 page thread .... just made 10k in 4 weeks doing what I want to while yall are trying 2 argue life over a computer .... fucking sad

[Eliseus]

You can say it as much as you want, but all you're doing is disqualifying yourself from rational conversation. Like I just said, if you want to broadcast this kind of anti-thought, go right ahead. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Just don't come crying to me when no one's willing to take you seriously or give you the chance to attempt a valid argument.

Look at this guy, he quotes that one statement out of your comment as if that is the only thing you said, like you didn't provide any validity behind your response. Like I said, they only read what they want to read, and out of all the great info you have also pointed out, all he saw was that one statement.

[Glenzig]

You can say it as much as you want, but all you're doing is disqualifying yourself from rational conversation. Like I just said, if you want to broadcast this kind of anti-thought, go right ahead. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Just don't come crying to me when no one's willing to take you seriously or give you the chance to attempt a valid argument.

Yeah RobotElvis has been the height of irrationality. He obviously isn't capable of intellectual debate. Good call.

[paulgiamatti]

I know, and all it took was one conflation from him for me to reach that conclusion. Makes my job so much easier.

[RobotElvis]

Look at this guy, he quotes that one statement out of your comment as if that is the only thing you said, like you didn't provide any validity behind your response. Like I said, they only read what they want to read, and out of all the great info you have also pointed out, all he saw was that one statement.

It's just sad. But apparently not even on the verge of being close to a maybe religious thought.

And because I believe in creation I am supposed to be the closed-minded one!

[Glenzig]

I wonder if most people who believe so rigidly in Evolution have ever done any honest research on where the origins of the theory came from?

[paulgiamatti]

I'd never make the charge of creationism being inherently closed-minded. When used as the basis to justify harmful fundamentalist religious views, then I'd say it's morally reprehensible, but I don't think "closed-minded" accurately represents my beef with it.

[RobotElvis]

You can say it as much as you want, but all you're doing is disqualifying yourself from rational conversation. Like I just said, if you want to broadcast this kind of anti-thought, go right ahead. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Just don't come crying to me when no one's willing to take you seriously or give you the chance to attempt a valid argument.

The theory that all plants and animals have descended from one primordial germ, is staggering to the mind. If so, how was it? Did this original germ split in two, like some disease germs, one of them the beginning of plant life, and the other the head of all animal life? Or, did vegetation only, grow from this first germ for ages, and then some of it turn into species of animals? As if the guess were worthy of attention, some are ready to assert that early vegetation Algae turned into animals. Did plants become animals somewhere along the way? Or did animals, somewhere along the way, turn into plants? How long did they interbreed before the gap became too wide? Where are the descendants of the union between plants and animals? If animals were first developed from this first germ, what did they live on while there was no vegetation?

Great gaps between the principal divisions of the animal world are fatal to this speculation, which rests upon nothing but the wish that it were so. Links are lacking between marine and amphibian animals; reptiles and birds; reptiles and mammals; between apes and man. Of course, we would find fossils of millions of these links if there were any. The missing links are necessary to the scheme. Is there one chance in a million that evolution is a true hypothesis?

[paulgiamatti]

I have no idea. Every question you've just asked extends far beyond my knowledge or expertise. It is fascinating though, I agree with you there.

[RobotElvis]

I wonder if most people who believe so rigidly in Evolution have ever done any honest research on where the origins of the theory came from?

They would be shocked to know that they are of the same mind aspartame ancient pagan religions. Religions that rely on chaos, anthropomorphism, apotheosis and androgyny as their core tenants.

[RobotElvis]

They would be shocked to know that they are of the same mind aspartame ancient pagan religions. Religions that rely on chaos, anthropomorphism, apotheosis and androgyny as their core tenants.

As most*** not aspartame

[RobotElvis]

I have no idea. Every question you've just asked extends far beyond my knowledge or expertise. It is fascinating though, I agree with you there.

That my friend is called blind faith.

[Glenzig]

They would be shocked to know that they are of the same mind aspartame ancient pagan religions. Religions that rely on chaos, anthropomorphism, apotheosis and androgyny as their core tenants.

Nah. C'mon. I thought it arose from discoveries made by intellectually neutral scientists.

[RobotElvis]

I'd never make the charge of creationism being inherently closed-minded. When used as the basis to justify harmful fundamentalist religious views, then I'd say it's morally reprehensible, but I don't think "closed-minded" accurately represents my beef with it.

I agree anything used to justify hatful actions against humanity should be considered morally reprehensible. But belief in a creator does not necessarily lead an individual down that path.

[paulgiamatti]

No, that's called honesty. I don't need to know the intricate details of how evolutionary biology works in order to understand that science is predicated on scrupulous peer review and years of crosschecking.

[paulgiamatti]

I agree anything used to justify hatful actions against humanity should be considered morally reprehensible. But belief in a creator does not necessarily lead an individual down that path.

Then here we can agree. All I ask is that you keep it to yourself when you're in my home or around my children.

[Glenzig]

Then here we can agree. All I ask is that you keep it to yourself when you're in my home or around my children.

You don't want your children to be given any other options for belief?

[Barkingturtle]

The theory that all plants and animals have descended from one primordial germ, is staggering to the mind.

Only if you're a fucking idiot.

Because the theory you put forth isn't held by anyone but fucking idiots.

Life evolved from single-cell organisms.

That does not mean life evolved from the same single-cell organism.

[RobotElvis]

Nah. C'mon. I thought it arose from discoveries made by intellectually neutral scientists.

Codified the Mesopotamian myth of creation: The whole story of this struggle is the subject of the Seven Tablets of Creation. The gods are deifications of the sun, moon, planets and other stars, and APSÛ, or CHAOS, and his companions the demons, are personifications of darkness, night and evil. The story of the fight between them is nothing more nor less than a picturesque allegory of natural phenomena.

What are some of these natural phenomena? :


There was a time in which there existed nothing but darkness and an abyss of waters, wherein resided most hideous beings, which were produced on a two-fold principle. There appeared men, some of whom were furnished with two wings, others with four, and with two faces. They had one body but two heads; the one that of a man, the other of a woman; and likewise in their several organs both male and female. Other human figures were to be seen with the legs and horns of goats; some had horses' feet; while others united the hind-quarters of a horse with the body of a man, resembling in shape the hippo-centaurs. Bulls likewise were bred there with the heads of men, and dogs with four told bodies, terminated in their extremities with the tails of fishes; horses also with the heads of dogs; men too and other animals, with the heads and bodies of horses and the tails of fishes. In short, there were creatures in which were combined the limbs of every species of animals. In addition to these, fishes, reptiles, serpents, with other monstrous animals, which assumed each other's shape and countenance.


Sounds kind of like transitional species to me.

[Glenzig]

Only if you're a fucking idiot.

Because the theory you put forth isn't held by anyone but fucking idiots.

Life evolved from single-cell organisms.

That does not mean life evolved from the same single-cell organism.

Where did these multiple single-celled organisms come from?

[RobotElvis]

Only if you're a fucking idiot.

Because the theory you put forth isn't held by anyone but fucking idiots.

Life evolved from single-cell organisms.

That does not mean life evolved from the same single-cell organism.

So how many were there? 2,3,6? If all life on earth , vegetable and animal, shares one thing in common i.e DNA , then how do you know that only one germ or organism wasn't needed?

[Eliseus]

Then here we can agree. All I ask is that you keep it to yourself when you're in my home or around my children.

So what he is saying is he wants your children to listen to his children fallacies, but will take action if your children try to preach anything. He also twists words to describe himself as being "honest" rather than admitting his blind faith.

[RobotElvis]

Then here we can agree. All I ask is that you keep it to yourself when you're in my home or around my children.

Yes but evolution has been used to commit horrible atrocities against humanity, namely eugenics. Yet I am sure that you are comfortable talking about evolution in school and in your home.

[paulgiamatti]

You don't want your children to be given any other options for belief?

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "belief" here. There are plenty of things about the universe and the study of science that are hugely inspiring - just read about supermassive black holes or look at the Hubble images of galaxy clusters, or read Stephen Hawking's description of the event horizon. There are plenty of things that can be simply believed with a great deal of awe and wonder under the purview of science without involving superstitious, religious nonsense.

If you were referencing spirituality, then yes I am very much open-minded to that as well. I believe to be human is to have the desire for self-transcendence, and reach a more enlightened state of being if you will. Does this make me believe in anything supernatural? It does not. I believe there is no such thing as a suspension of the laws of physics, and it is this fact about our universe that is the only thing that can be described as miraculous.

[Glenzig]

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "belief" here. There are plenty of things about the universe and the study of science that are hugely inspiring - just read about supermassive black holes or look at the Hubble images of galaxy clusters, or read Stephen Hawking's description of the event horizon. There are plenty of things that can be simply believed with a great deal of awe and wonder under the purview of science without involving superstitious, religious nonsense.

If you were referencing spirituality, then yes I am very much open-minded to that as well. I believe to be human is to have the desire for self-transcendence, and reach a more enlightened state of being if you will. Does this make me believe in anything supernatural? It does not. I believe there is no such thing as a suspension of the laws of physics, and it is this fact about our universe that is the only thing that can be described as miraculous.

So Transhumanism is ok, but any mention of God is out of the question?

[Barkingturtle]

Where did these multiple single-celled organisms come from?

The stars, duh.

Look, I commend your curiosity, but you have a responsibility to educate yourself. I have no obligation to lead you around by your pudgy little baby hand.

So how many were there? 2,3,6? If all life on earth , vegetable and animal, shares one thing in common i.e DNA , then how do you know that only one germ or organism wasn't needed?

You're ridiculous. You call it a mind-boggling theory, I tell you it's not actually a theory anyone holds, and then you expect me to defend your ill-conceived hypothetical for you?

I guess that's the kind of circular logic one clings to when they can't make sense of the world around them.

[paulgiamatti]

Yes but evolution has been used to commit horrible atrocities against humanity, namely eugenics. Yet I am sure that you are comfortable talking about evolution in school and in your home.

Religion is the only thing that indoctrinates in scripture carrying out malevolent, hateful, and oppressive things to others in the name of god or under his direct command. There are speeches about this very subject by widely acclaimed secular humanists that carry much more weight under their names than I do, I've mentioned a handful of them somewhere upthread.

Humans can find any reason to do evil and wicked things, but religion, to put it euphemistically, has far more blood on its hands than anything else in mankind's history. To ignore this is simply to be anti-historical.

[RobotElvis]

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "belief" here. There are plenty of things about the universe and the study of science that are hugely inspiring - just read about supermassive black holes or look at the Hubble images of galaxy clusters, or read Stephen Hawking's description of the event horizon. There are plenty of things that can be simply believed with a great deal of awe and wonder under the purview of science without involving superstitious, religious nonsense.

If you were referencing spirituality, then yes I am very much open-minded to that as well. I believe to be human is to have the desire for self-transcendence, and reach a more enlightened state of being if you will. Does this make me believe in anything supernatural? It does not. I believe there is no such thing as a suspension of the laws of physics, and it is this fact about our universe that is the only thing that can be described as miraculous.

I think spontaneous generation is pretty miraculous and suspends the laws of our universe.

0+0=1= miracle= evolution

[Eliseus]

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "belief" here. There are plenty of things about the universe and the study of science that are hugely inspiring - just read about supermassive black holes or look at the Hubble images of galaxy clusters, or read Stephen Hawking's description of the event horizon. There are plenty of things that can be simply believed with a great deal of awe and wonder under the purview of science without involving superstitious, religious nonsense.

If you were referencing spirituality, then yes I am very much open-minded to that as well. I believe to be human is to have the desire for self-transcendence, and reach a more enlightened state of being if you will. Does this make me believe in anything supernatural? It does not. I believe there is no such thing as a suspension of the laws of physics, and it is this fact about our universe that is the only thing that can be described as miraculous.

Stephen Hawkings is one of the most self-absorbed people on this planet. He is the pinnacle of this discussion with "if science says this is what it is, this is what it is, no exceptions" type comments. No matter the absurdity. You might as well let him just say God does exist, because he sure acts like one, and he would probably claim he is.

[RobotElvis]

Religion is the only thing that indoctrinates in scripture carrying out malevolent, hateful, and oppressive things to others in the name of god or under his direct command. There are speeches about this very subject by widely acclaimed secular humanists that carry much more weight under their names than I do, I've mentioned a handful of them somewhere upthread.

Humans can find any reason to do evil and wicked things, but religion, to put it euphemistically, has far more blood on its hands than anything else in mankind's history. To ignore this is simply to be anti-historical.

Yes religion has the lions share of bloodshed on its hands through history, no doubt. But I cannot blame God for that, nor the bible. Anymore than you would blame evolution for the killing of millions of persons through eugenics.

[Glenzig]

The stars, duh.

Look, I commend your curiosity, but you have a responsibility to educate yourself. I have no obligation to lead you around by your pudgy little baby.

The stars? Please explain how single-cell organisms "came from the stars".

[paulgiamatti]

So Transhumanism is ok, but any mention of God is out of the question?

I don't care about the mention of god or deities - that's going to happen, anywhere and everywhere. But if you come into my house and start preaching religious bullshit, you're going to be leaving very quickly. The study of religious scripture, compulsory praise and worship, the participation in church, will never, ever be mandated to my kids. That is out of the question.

[RobotElvis]

The stars, duh.

Look, I commend your curiosity, but you have a responsibility to educate yourself. I have no obligation to lead you around by your pudgy little baby hand.



You're ridiculous. You call it a mind-boggling theory, I tell you it's not actually a theory anyone holds, and then you expect me to defend your ill-conceived hypothetical for you?

I guess that's the kind of circular logic one clings to when they can't make sense of the world around them.
Well it was a simple question but ok.

So single cell organisms come from stars? How do they exist in the cold radiation filled death trap of space? And how did they get to earth? Oh wait! Probly a meteor. That's why we see them all the time on meteors now.

[paulgiamatti]

Yes religion has the lions share of bloodshed on its hands through history, no doubt. But I cannot blame God for that, nor the bible. Anymore than you would blame evolution for the killing of millions of persons through eugenics.

Then it's here that we differ.

[RobotElvis]

I don't care about the mention of god or deities - that's going to happen, anywhere and everywhere. But if you come into my house and start preaching religious bullshit, you're going to be leaving very quickly. The study of religious scripture, compulsory praise and worship, the participation in church, will never, ever be mandated to my kids. That is out of the question.

Just the doctrine of evolution. Got ya

[Glenzig]

I don't care about the mention of god or deities - that's going to happen, anywhere and everywhere. But if you come into my house and start preaching religious bullshit, you're going to be leaving very quickly. The study of religious scripture, compulsory praise and worship, the participation in church, will never, ever be mandated to my kids. That is out of the question.

What if your children are genuinely curious about the subject?

[RobotElvis]

Then it's here that we differ.

So then you do blame evolution for atrocities to mankind, yet you still believe in it and will teach it to children. Very interesting

[Eliseus]

I don't care about the mention of god or deities - that's going to happen, anywhere and everywhere. But if you come into my house and start preaching religious bullshit, you're going to be leaving very quickly. The study of religious scripture, compulsory praise and worship, the participation in church, will never, ever be mandated to my kids. That is out of the question.

Who lets someone in their house without knowing what they are going to talk to them. Unless you whole objective is to let them into your house and ridicule them. In that case, you are just a horrible human being and there is a bigger issue here than what your children are hearing at school.

[paulgiamatti]

What if your children are genuinely curious about the subject?

Then they're free to learn as they wish, of course. I'd actually encourage reading religious literature, as it's actually quite well-written and fascinating in its own right. It is, after all, a part of our history.

[RobotElvis]

The stars, duh.

Look, I commend your curiosity, but you have a responsibility to educate yourself. I have no obligation to lead you around by your pudgy little baby hand.



You're ridiculous. You call it a mind-boggling theory, I tell you it's not actually a theory anyone holds, and then you expect me to defend your ill-conceived hypothetical for you?

I guess that's the kind of circular logic one clings to when they can't make sense of the world around them.
Btw you can make a reply as soon as you take your foot out of your mouth.
It seems it might just be the new cool theory (again) to believe in the Darwinian model of one common ancestor.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

You really need to keep up with your flip-flopping scientist

[Glenzig]

Then they're free to learn as they wish, of course. I'd actually encourage reading religious literature, as it's actually quite well-written and fascinating in its own right. It is, after all, a part of our history.

Awesome. What if they decided to join a religion?

[paulgiamatti]

So then you do blame evolution for atrocities to mankind, yet you still believe in it and will teach it to children. Very interesting

Not quite. This would be similar to blaming science for the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or blaming technology for every casualty of fire arms, and so forth. It's not quite the same thing as the poisonous ideas instilled into people by radical interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas like martyrdom and hunting down and killing people for apostasy. I did say religion having more blood on its hands was a euphemism, but that's probably a huge understatement.

[paulgiamatti]

Awesome. What if they decided to join a religion?

I'd be perfectly fine with that, I'm not here to oppress them. It's my job to let them live and get out of the way, while giving as much moral support and guidance as is necessary of course.

[Glenzig]

I'd be perfectly fine with that, I'm not here to oppress them. It's my job to let them live and get out of the way, while giving as much moral support and guidance as is necessary of course.

What about when they talked about their religion to you?

[paulgiamatti]

What about when they talked about their religion to you?

I'd listen. Are you trying to get to admit something here?

[Eliseus]

Not quite. This would be similar to blaming science for the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or blaming technology for every casualty of fire arms, and so forth. It's not quite the same thing as the poisonous ideas instilled into people by radical interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas like martyrdom and hunting down and killing people for apostasy. I did say religion having more blood on its hands was a euphemism, but that's probably a huge understatement.

What, so your murder is better than my murder is what you are basically saying. I honestly don't know for sure, so assuming you do, and would be really grateful for the provided info, I know I could just google it, but maybe something will slip through the cracks that I would miss. How much "genocide" has there been in the world due to religious beliefs? Let us ignore everything is basically religion and use your views. What is the body count on these views. You seem to imply that it is vastly greater than people who just want to kill to kill, or to conquer. I mean in such a way that it almost seems like it doesn't exist in your mind. So really interested to know what these numbers, or wars actually are.

[paulgiamatti]

I don't have those numbers, but they're readily available on this vast collection of information we have at our fingertips.

[Glenzig]

I'd listen. Are you trying to get to admit something here?

No. Just honest questions. Thank you for answering though. It does bring one question to mind though. And I'm not trying to be provocative, but why would you be so willing to listen to your children talk about their religion, but out rightly reject anyone else talking to you about it?

[RobotElvis]

Not quite. This would be similar to blaming science for the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or blaming technology for every casualty of fire arms, and so forth. It's not quite the same thing as the poisonous ideas instilled into people by radical interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas like martyrdom and hunting down and killing people for apostasy. I did say religion having more blood on its hands was a euphemism, but that's probably a huge understatement.

But see you support my claim that you cannot blame God or the bible for those things by calling them "radical interpretations of religious doctrine". Of they are radical they are inherently immoral and not in harmony with truth.

And you are right you cannot blame science for the destruction from the atomic bomb. It was a choice made by the possessors of the scientific knowledge that gave the WMD's that lead to the death of thousands.

[RobotElvis]

I don't have those numbers, but they're readily available on this vast collection of information we have at our fingertips.

You might be interested to know that your claim of religions being responsible for the majority of bloodshed on earth is backed up by the bible. In revelation when John sees the Harlot drunk on the blood of mankind, that is what is meant. False religion, religion that has apostatized from the truth of the bible, has been the driving force behind all major wars on earth.

[paulgiamatti]

No. Just honest questions. Thank you for answering though. It does bring one question to mind though. And I'm not trying to be provocative, but why would you be so willing to listen to your children talk about their religion, but out rightly reject anyone else talking to you about it?

Among friends I'm happy to discuss religion or The Big Questions. It's the random strangers, Jehova's Witnesses and the like that I'm referring to when I ask that it be kept to oneself. I don't need to hear some idiot yelling about how god has a plan for me on my way to work, and I sure as hell don't want one on my doorstep asking to be invited in so he can read me some passages from Genesis.

[RobotElvis]

Among friends I'm happy to discuss religion or The Big Questions. It's the random strangers, Jehova's Witnesses and the like that I'm referring to when I ask that it be kept to oneself. I don't need to hear some idiot yelling about how god has a plan for me on my way to work, and I sure as hell don't want one on my doorstep asking to be invited in so he can read me some passages from Genesis.

Genesis is a good book.

[Eliseus]

Among friends I'm happy to discuss religion or The Big Questions. It's the random strangers, Jehova's Witnesses and the like that I'm referring to when I ask that it be kept to oneself. I don't need to hear some idiot yelling about how god has a plan for me on my way to work, and I sure as hell don't want one on my doorstep asking to be invited in so he can read me some passages from Genesis.

How else do you expect a religion to spread their word? Let me better ask you, if you were so happy, and had some kind of care in the world, wouldn't you want others to live as happy as you, and not just sit in this knowledge in hopes that people will find you? Like I said, you have all the right in the world to deny talking to someone about it or not invite them into your house, but you imply these people force their way into your home and feed this knowledge down your throat.

[Glenzig]

Among friends I'm happy to discuss religion or The Big Questions. It's the random strangers, Jehova's Witnesses and the like that I'm referring to when I ask that it be kept to oneself. I don't need to hear some idiot yelling about how god has a plan for me on my way to work, and I sure as hell don't want one on my doorstep asking to be invited in so he can read me some passages from Genesis.

I've always found that open conversation, even with strangers, even with people I completely disagree with is often the most enlightening. We most likely know how our friends and family feel about the big questions, but conversation with someone willing to have honest and respectful interchange has a way of challenging your belief system in a unique way. And I like to give my worldview a good honest challenge now and then.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, I guess I'll just ask the dear readers of P99 RnF if I've made that implication. I don't think I have.

I am saying though that I believe religion is a universally toxifying force, a poison for the masses that invariably does more harm than good. And it is in my best interest to dissuade as many people as I can away from it, so that they won't be caught in this deintellectualizing thought-trap. I think it's wholly unhealthy for the mind, and can only lead to intellectual stagnation and degeneration. These are my views and I'll speak them as loudly and as clearly as I damn well please.

[Glenzig]

Well, I guess I'll just ask the dear readers of P99 RnF if I've made that implication. I don't think I have.

I am saying though that I believe religion is a universally toxifying force, a poison for the masses that invariably does more harm than good. And it is in my best interest to dissuade as many people as I can away from it, so that they won't be caught in this deintellectualizing thought-trap. I think it's wholly unhealthy for the mind, and can only lead to intellectual stagnation and degeneration. These are my views and I'll speak them as loudly and as clearly as I damn well please.

Preach the word brother.

[RobotElvis]

I've always found that open conversation, even with strangers, even with people I completely disagree with is often the most enlightening. We most likely know how our friends and family feel about the big questions, but conversation with someone willing to have honest and respectful interchange has a way of challenging your belief system in a unique way. And I like to give my worldview a good honest challenge now and then.

I agree. One of my former work mates is atheist and feels poorly about religion. We had very engaging conversations, with the agreement that no matter what was said we wouldn't be offended. We enjoyed the open atmosphere that created, and he was shocked to learn many of our viewpoints on religion were not dissimilar.

[Pokesan]

i'm a gay wiener who argues about religion on the internet

it's dumb

[paulgiamatti]

I've always found that open conversation, even with strangers, even with people I completely disagree with is often the most enlightening. We most likely know how our friends and family feel about the big questions, but conversation with someone willing to have honest and respectful interchange has a way of challenging your belief system in a unique way. And I like to give my worldview a good honest challenge now and then.

Total agreement here, and I do take this opportunity when it seems appropriate.

[RobotElvis]

Well, I guess I'll just ask the dear readers of P99 RnF if I've made that implication. I don't think I have.

I am saying though that I believe religion is a universally toxifying force, a poison for the masses that invariably does more harm than good. And it is in my best interest to dissuade as many people as I can away from it, so that they won't be caught in this deintellectualizing thought-trap. I think it's wholly unhealthy for the mind, and can only lead to intellectual stagnation and degeneration. These are my views and I'll speak them as loudly and as clearly as I damn well please.

I agree as a whole religion has failed mankind with lies and hypocrisy.

[Eliseus]

I don't care about the mention of god or deities - that's going to happen, anywhere and everywhere. But if you come into my house and start preaching religious bullshit, you're going to be leaving very quickly. The study of religious scripture, compulsory praise and worship, the participation in church, will never, ever be mandated to my kids. That is out of the question.

I don't know, I'm pretty ignorant, but it seemed to be implied here.

[RobotElvis]

i'm a gay wiener who argues about religion on the internet

it's dumb

[Eliseus]

Like I've pointed out, I really do enjoy the discussion, it does eventually end in a hassle though because it just goes in a big circle, but the last few pages I feel have been pretty enjoyable read.

[Glenzig]

Total agreement here, and I do take this opportunity when it seems appropriate.

So we actually are of the same mindset as far as that goes.

[Gaffin 7.0]

naw fuck all yall

join red server son

[RobotElvis]

Like I've pointed out, I really do enjoy the discussion, it does eventually end in a hassle though because it just goes in a big circle, but the last few pages I feel have been pretty enjoyable read.

It's called natural selection. All the tards took there ball and went home because they couldn't handle it anymore. They died off, not fit enough to survive.

GO DARWIN! Super power transitional speciation that you can't see because it takes millions of years!

That's my new super hero.

[Glenzig]

It's called natural selection. All the tards took there ball and went home because they couldn't handle it anymore. They died off, not fit enough to survive.

GO DARWIN! Super power transitional speciation that you can't see because it takes millions of years!

That's my new super hero.

Hahahahah.

[paulgiamatti]

I don't know, I'm pretty ignorant, but it seemed to be implied here.

All I'm saying is as much as the religious have the right to spread their gospel and to attempt to proselytize, I have just as much right to reject it at face value. I can't think of any other organizations that go door-to-door through neighborhoods in an attempt to recruit followers. This is cultist behavior.

I retract that I wasn't implying they're trying to force it down our throats because I'm saying they really, actually are forcing it down our throats. And meanwhile we have to be on guard to make sure they don't pass creationism through school legislation - could you even imagine how preposterous this would be? Christian Science? After chemistry class, kids, get ready for alchemy. After astronomy, that's right, we'll be taking out our astrology charts.

[RobotElvis]

Hahahahah.

With his sidekick Julian Huxley as amoeba boy.

"Just hold on Huxley we are almost to the Cambrian explosion, you'll be a vertebrae soon!"

[Glenzig]

All I'm saying is as much as the religious have the right to spread their gospel and to attempt to proselytize, I have just as much right to reject it at face value. I can't think of any other organizations that go door-to-door through neighborhoods in an attempt to recruit followers. This is cultist behavior.

I retract that I wasn't implying they're trying to force it down our throats because I'm saying they really, actually are forcing it down our throats. And meanwhile we have to be on guard to make sure they don't pass creationism through school legislation - could you even imagine how preposterous this would be? Christian Science? After chemistry class, kids, get ready for alchemy. After astronomy, that's right, we'll be taking out our astrology charts.

I think you are conflating ideas now. How did believing in creation turn into believing in Alchemy and Astrology?

[RobotElvis]

All I'm saying is as much as the religious have the right to spread their gospel and to attempt to proselytize, I have just as much right to reject it at face value. I can't think of any other organizations that go door-to-door through neighborhoods in an attempt to recruit followers. This is cultist behavior.

I retract that I wasn't implying they're trying to force it down our throats because I'm saying they really, actually are forcing it down our throats. And meanwhile we have to be on guard to make sure they don't pass creationism through school legislation - could you even imagine how preposterous this would be? Christian Science? After chemistry class, kids, get ready for alchemy. After astronomy, that's right, we'll be taking out our astrology charts.

It's called culpability. Most persons that preach door to door do not do so to recruit followers, but to make sure that people cannot say they never had chance to hear about the message of the bible. After all it isn't taught in public education, and fewer people than ever actually attend church. As the apostle Paul said though " how will they hear without someone to preach".

If you reject the message at least the messenger is not culpable for not spreading it. And fulfilled the command to preach.

[Glenzig]

With his sidekick Julian Huxley as amoeba boy.

"Just hold on Huxley we are almost to the Cambrian explosion, you'll be a vertebrae soon!"

Would it be Julian or Aldus?

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah I'm not being literal, I'm just saying it would be a Bad Thing with dry humor.

[RobotElvis]

Would it be Julian or Aldus?

I wanted a 20th century Darwinian into story so it didn't seem antiquated. But you find out he is just the evolved for of the first primordial slime all Thomas Huxley.

[Glenzig]

Yeah I'm not being literal, I'm just saying it would be a Bad Thing with dry humor.

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

[RobotElvis]

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

No that goes against the agenda of those that control the education system.

"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity, Frederick Gates, 1913

[Glenzig]

No that goes against the agenda of those that control the education system.

"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity, Frederick Gates, 1913

Well I know that. But it still would make little sense for someone who feels that the point of education is critical thinking and the dissemination of unbiased facts and knowledge to want one or the other taught in public schools. If the goal is simply to remove the teaching of creation or intelligent design from public schools, then why does the antithesis have to be taught instead? Why not make a concerted effort to teach unbiased science?

[paulgiamatti]

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

I like the way it's currently done, which basically teaches about the concept of creationism without going into anything dogmatic. Creationism didn't give us huge technological advancements and therefore doesn't deserve as much time in the classroom as science does. To say the same people that did give us these societal advancements have a theory about the way our species came into existence, but for some reason it should deserve equal time in the classroom as creationism - an out-moded and increasingly irrelevant way of thinking - is not in any way logical.

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

[RobotElvis]

I like the way it's currently done, which basically teaches about the concept of creationism without going into anything dogmatic. Creationism didn't give us huge technological advancements and therefore doesn't deserve as much time in the classroom as science does. To say the same people that did give us these societal advancements have a theory about the way our species came into existence, but for some reason it should deserve equal time in the classroom as creationism - an out-moded and increasingly irrelevant way of thinking - is not in any way logical.

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

Confo or die. Survival of the fittest. Transcend into a new human!

Have you looked into new age religions. They share your worldview quite perfectly.

[Glenzig]

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

So if I view evolution as a religious thought process and a form of scientific interpretation but not science itself, I am unworthy of being part of the conversation? My viewpoint will be summarily dismissed based on this alone?

[Eliseus]

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

It is though, and I'm being serious. We won't go there again because it goes in a loop, but I am the only one in that convo to present actually definitions to support the claim. While you provided your opinion that it isn't. Everything aside, weather or not w/e "religion does" or science, didn't matter. BY DEFINITION, the theory of evolution is religious. Maybe I couldn't explain it better, but RobotElvis gave very logical explanations that make complete sense and are understandable to give more reasoning, even though common sense would think that the definition is enough.

Anyways.....

[paulgiamatti]

Negotiation is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

http://globalneighbourhoods.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-borg.jpg

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CnVPtEWVWP0/UPJgG0_e9pI/AAAAAAAABpo/nMnRrLgZMwg/s1600/Borg_2366.jpg

You will become one with the Borg.
You will all become one with the Borg.

http://www.cosplayisland.co.uk/files/costumes/746/18807/Assimilation.jpg

You must comply.

http://mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/525541_512647242079315_1435752236_n-560x420.jpg

[Patriam1066]

I like the way it's currently done, which basically teaches about the concept of creationism without going into anything dogmatic. Creationism didn't give us huge technological advancements and therefore doesn't deserve as much time in the classroom as science does. To say the same people that did give us these societal advancements have a theory about the way our species came into existence, but for some reason it should deserve equal time in the classroom as creationism - an out-moded and increasingly irrelevant way of thinking - is not in any way logical.

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

Hmmm, the Protestant Reformation actually gave the world quite a lot of scientific advancement. It's not a coincidence that the Enlightenment happened in Protestant northern Europe. Protestants taught literacy and critical thinking, so that people would be equipped to challenge Catholic orthodoxy. This resulted in Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Niehls Bohr.

I'm not saying creationism should be taught, and I'm certainly not saying it has as much merit as teaching evolution. But you should be impartial. If you want to hit religion for its failings, and they are numerous, you must also give it credit. Protestant northern Europe and the countries that resulted from its cultural (NZ, Aus, US, Canada.... arguably South Korea and Singapore as well) are not all overwhelmingly successful without cause. They came from a common cultural, religious value or valuing literacy, higher education, and critical thinking.

[RobotElvis]

Negotiation is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

http://globalneighbourhoods.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-borg.jpg

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CnVPtEWVWP0/UPJgG0_e9pI/AAAAAAAABpo/nMnRrLgZMwg/s1600/Borg_2366.jpg

You will become one with the Borg.
You will all become one with the Borg.

http://www.cosplayisland.co.uk/files/costumes/746/18807/Assimilation.jpg

You must comply.

http://mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/525541_512647242079315_1435752236_n-560x420.jpg
I am Locutus of Borg. Resistance is futile.


But I don't fear being assimilated as I am just a anti-thought Christian who has nothing beneficial to bring to the collective.

We may laugh at the go thought of a collective and assimilation, but it is a very real future for evolutionary transhumanists like William sims bainbridge who dre of a hive consciousness as the next step in mankinds evolution.
Prepare to be assimilated!

[Glenzig]

I am Locutus of Borg. Resistance is futile.


But I don't fear being assimilated as I am just a anti-thought Christian who has nothing beneficial to bring to the collective.

We may laugh at the go thought of a collective and assimilation, but it is a very real future for evolutionary transhumanists like William sims bainbridge who dre of a hive consciousness as the next step in mankinds evolution.
Prepare to be assimilated!

Very close to what I was about to type.

[paulgiamatti]

Hmmm, the Protestant Reformation actually gave the world quite a lot of scientific advancement. It's not a coincidence that the Enlightenment happened in Protestant northern Europe. Protestants taught literacy and critical thinking, so that people would be equipped to challenge Catholic orthodoxy. This resulted in Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Niehls Bohr.

I'm not saying creationism should be taught, and I'm certainly not saying it has as much merit as teaching evolution. But you should be impartial. If you want to hit religion for its failings, and they are numerous, you must also give it credit. Protestant northern Europe and the countries that resulted from its cultural (NZ, Aus, US, Canada.... arguably South Korea and Singapore as well) are not all overwhelmingly successful without cause. They came from a common cultural, religious value or valuing literacy, higher education, and critical thinking.

Yes, as I said upthread religion isn't testament to our unintelligence, but our immorality. Many of the brightest scientists and scholars in history were Christian theologians, namely Thomas Aquinas, and the originators of the scientific method were indeed largely Christian or at the very least deistic. It has certainly helped us along in the past, and you're right - I do owe it to myself to study more of it, it is an enlightening subject on which you could spend a lifetime of reading.

[RobotElvis]

Yes, as I said upthread religion isn't testament to our unintelligence, but our immorality. Many of the brightest scientists and scholars in history were Christian theologians, namely Thomas Aquinas, and the originators of the scientific method were indeed largely Christian or at the very least deistic. It has certainly helped us along in the past, and you're right - I do owe it to myself to study more of it, it is an enlightening subject on which you could spend a lifetime of reading.

I have always wondered what advantage morality is in the evolutionary worldview. It goes directly against survival of the fittest.

[Patriam1066]

Hmmm, the Protestant Reformation actually gave the world quite a lot of scientific advancement. It's not a coincidence that the Enlightenment happened in Protestant northern Europe. Protestants taught literacy and critical thinking, so that people would be equipped to challenge Catholic orthodoxy. This resulted in Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Niehls Bohr.

I'm not saying creationism should be taught, and I'm certainly not saying it has as much merit as teaching evolution. But you should be impartial. If you want to hit religion for its failings, and they are numerous, you must also give it credit. Protestant northern Europe and the countries that resulted from its cultural (NZ, Aus, US, Canada.... arguably South Korea and Singapore as well) are not all overwhelmingly successful without cause. They came from a common cultural, religious value or valuing literacy, higher education, and critical thinking.

Fuck all the typos but you can see what I'm saying.

I'd also like to mention the Islamic Golden Age. Seems like a far off time, but there was a period when Cairo, Baghdad, Samarqand, Iran, and Islamic Spain were Meccas of scientific study and progress.

Religion has done a lot for the world.... You think humans would've had it for so long without there being some benefit? Give your ancestors some credit. They invented the computer you type on, they discovered the electricity that powers it, and they learned to work most of the metals and semiconductors within it. Humanity had a pragmatic purpose for religion... Or, there might just be a religion out there that is true. Who the fuck knows. But I guarantee you the man who brought about Roman aqueducts was superstitious and thanked Jupiter for his creation.

Oh, and since we're on an elf sim...

You realize nordic religions created mythology around elves and dwarves and such? What do you think magic is? It's a collective superstitious belief passed down through ages. If you like EQ, the world's religions have contributed to your life in a very tangible way.

Also, can you please film when a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door? I bet your response of temple throbbing rage would be extremely funny.

[Patriam1066]

Yes, as I said upthread religion isn't testament to our unintelligence, but our immorality. Many of the brightest scientists and scholars in history were Christian theologians, namely Thomas Aquinas, and the originators of the scientific method were indeed largely Christian or at the very least deistic. It has certainly helped us along in the past, and you're right - I do owe it to myself to study more of it, it is an enlightening subject on which you could spend a lifetime of reading.

Ah I disagree with you there man. If the Catholic church covers up a child abuse scandal, that isn't a sign of the Bible's immorality, it's a sign of the human beings continuing to be imperfect. But I've had a couple too many beers tonight and I can't really contineu this discussion without my head exploding.

All I can say is, religion isnt' all bad, it isn't all good. Same thing with science. You have to have faith in some things, but maintain a healthy skepticism as, sadly, there are people out there, in the name of many different things, who would manipulate you.

Also, I think the New Testament is a great philosophical read (excluding Revelation). The Old Testament doesn't make much sense to me, as I doubt God would be such an ass hole (see Job). In any case, denying yourself a rich legacy of philosophy that has come from Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc, is to limit yourself to entire cultures worth of collective thought over thousands of yeras.

[paulgiamatti]

Also, can you please film when a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door? I bet your response of temple throbbing rage would be extremely funny.

Oh I don't think they'll be coming back here anytime soon. I think I've scared them off for a good while.

[Patriam1066]

I have always wondered what advantage morality is in the evolutionary worldview. It goes directly against survival of the fittest.

OK seiously last postd fuck this... but:

It takes roughly 14, 18, 20 years to raise a human being. Prior to that, we are physically, emotionally (debatable), and intellectually weak. From an evolutionary standpoint, having some form of marriage, monogamy, polygamy, etc... makes sense because an infant would need protecting that a mother couldn't give alone. Once you start having units like that, it stands to reason that we'd expand our "group" to include more than just our parents and children. We then include grandchildren, cousins, nephews, etc... you see where I'm going with this.

At a certain point, you have a society, and since we are social, and since we have different talents, we must work together to maximize our rate of survival. Very simplistic, but I definitely believe morality actually makes perfect sense evolutionarily speaking. If humans ONLY fight one another, and never work together, we'd all be fucked.

[paulgiamatti]

morality actually makes perfect sense evolutionarily speaking.

Completely agree. The Jewish people couldn't have made it to the foot of Mount Sinai if they were under the impression that murder, theft and perjury were kosher things to do, or if they didn't have some idea of the importance of human solidarity. These things are innate in us, and aren't bestowed upon us by some celestial dictator that watches over us from above. The weakest argument religion can make is that any notion of human morality must be deferred upward, otherwise we wouldn't have any moral ground to stand on at all.

[RobotElvis]

OK seiously last postd fuck this... but:

It takes roughly 14, 18, 20 years to raise a human being. Prior to that, we are physically, emotionally (debatable), and intellectually weak. From an evolutionary standpoint, having some form of marriage, monogamy, polygamy, etc... makes sense because an infant would need protecting that a mother couldn't give alone. Once you start having units like that, it stands to reason that we'd expand our "group" to include more than just our parents and children. We then include grandchildren, cousins, nephews, etc... you see where I'm going with this.

At a certain point, you have a society, and since we are social, and since we have different talents, we must work together to maximize our rate of survival. Very simplistic, but I definitely believe morality actually makes perfect sense evolutionarily speaking. If humans ONLY fight one another, and never work together, we'd all be fucked.

I disagree. That theory posits that organization among animals leads to morality.
If we have groups of animals then we should see the same morality as humans have in the animal kingdom.

For instance a lion tribe is dependent upon a patriarchal system of protection from rival tribes and a matriarchal system to provide food.
However no high morality is seen in a lion tribe, the fathers of cubs often kill their own progeny if the perceive a competitive threat.
And the food providing mothers do not make sure that the weakest cub gets the food first.
They have no high moral function that guides their lives as humans do.

For that matter if evolution of morals was contingent upon group protection then large flocks of birds or schools of fish should be the highest of moral agents as they have had much more time in the evolutionary scale than humans to work out their moral evolution based upon their large groups of flocks and schools.

Morality is a strictly human product. If a horse kicks in the head and kills his owner who has raised him from a foal, feeding him, training him, making sure he is in good health, that horse feels no remorse for the death of his owner. He does not feel guilt over it. He has no morality. Yet horses travel in large groups and evolved in the same environment as humans.

So what made humans capable of morality? It would have to be our high intelligence.

So how does a mind evolve to the point of having morality and intelligence? After all a mind is not biological it cannot evolve and grow on a Darwinian biological model.

[Barkingturtle]

Quit being stupid, fuckers.

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

When a daddy lion eats its young -- that's lion morality, baby.

What you're failing to describe is empathy, which many lower life forms exhibit. Empathy serves an evolutionary purpose, while morality is primarily used to control the actions and thoughts of man.

[RobotElvis]

Quit being stupid, fuckers.

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

When a daddy lion eats its young -- that's lion morality, baby.

What you're failing to describe is empathy, which many lower life forms exhibit. Empathy serves an evolutionary purpose, while morality is primarily used to control the actions and thoughts of man.

You're right empathy is far different than morality. Morality is the check and balance to emotions such as empathy.

For example, an empathetic person may look at the plight of a terminally ill person and conclude it would be the empathetic thing to put that person out of their misery.
After all their quality of life is not up to human standards.
But morality checks that emotional thought and says "no that's wrong".
Thus the reason assisted suicide is illegal in civilized countries.

Morality, not emotions is the guiding compass of mankind.
Yet is not present in the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have descended.
So how did it evolve?

[radditsu]

You're right empathy is far different than morality. Morality is the check and balance to emotions such as empathy.

For example, an empathetic person may look at the plight of a terminally ill person and conclude it would be the empathetic thing to put that person out of their misery.
After all their quality of life is not up to human standards.
But morality checks that emotional thought and says "no that's wrong".
Thus the reason assisted suicide is illegal in civilized countries.

Morality, not emotions is the guiding compass of mankind.
Yet is not present in the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have descended.
So how did it evolve?

http://www.clayburn.wtf/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bill-and-ted-socrates.jpg

[Barkingturtle]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.

[radditsu]

http://www.clayburn.wtf/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bill-and-ted-socrates.jpg



I explained it with a picture bark. Dont lower your glory down to him.

[RobotElvis]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.
Ok let's use your logic of morality being a concept.
Religion is also in your mind a concept I'm sure.
Yet many people feel that they have transcended the concept of religion in their personal humanity. Concepts after all are not hereditary put acquired and can be regard or disregarded as useful.

So then at what point will it become acceptable to transcend the concept of morality on human evolution? What keeps morality as a more viable human concept than religion or worship?

[Barkingturtle]

I want you to try that again. Take some time, organize your thoughts, maybe even examine them, then try again.

[RobotElvis]

I want you to try that again. Take some time, organize your thoughts, maybe even examine them, then try again.

Ok maybe I will be more simple and clear for you then you can understand.

You claim morality is a concept. Concepts are acquired and not hereditary.

Religion/worship is a concept it is the not hereditary but acquired.

However morality unlike religion is universally immutable to the human family regardless of your concept of religion/worship.

Example: the irreligious regime of the Khmer Rouge killed millions of people. If morality is nothing more than a concept then we have to accept that as their view of what is right and wrong. Their concept of morality. They were not influenced by the concept of religion after all.

Are you willing to say that the Khmer Rouge were in their own moral concept of right and wrong not immoral in their actions?

[Glenzig]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.

So in your view evolution can account for morality. However you also state that morality is a concept that is invented and not evolved, thus negating your claim of morality evolving by evolutionary means. After all only genetic traits are passed along to future generations, not invented concepts like morality.

[leewong]

Ok maybe I will be more simple and clear for you then you can understand.

You claim morality is a concept. Concepts are acquired and not hereditary.

Religion/worship is a concept it is the not hereditary but acquired.

However morality unlike religion is universally immutable to the human family regardless of your concept of religion/worship.

Example: the irreligious regime of the Khmer Rouge killed millions of people. If morality is nothing more than a concept then we have to accept that as their view of what is right and wrong. Their concept of morality. They were not influenced by the concept of religion after all.

Are you willing to say that the Khmer Rouge were in their own moral concept of right and wrong not immoral in their actions?

The Khmer more than likely viewed their actions as justified. Hitler probably thought he was a pretty rad dude. Jeffrey Dahmer probably liked the taste of humans. What's your point? That is just more evidence that morality is a concept and not some concrete edict written on our hearts by a sky daddy.

Morality is a concept. I can ask you to picture a doorknob. When you imagine a doorknob it may be very different than the picture I have in my mind as a doorknob. Is the concept of doorknobs somehow negated by that? Have humans not refined the concept over the centuries? So yes, morality can evolve through a society and be refined but not everyone has to share that same morality.

[leewong]

So in your view evolution can account for morality. However you also state that morality is a concept that is invented and not evolved, thus negating your claim of morality evolving by evolutionary means. After all only genetic traits are passed along to future generations, not invented concepts like morality.

Follow along now...

The evolutionary process created humans. Humans have concepts. Human's pass concepts down through societies. Concepts change/evolve as humans refine or disregard them with each successive generation.

[RobotElvis]

The Khmer more than likely viewed their actions as justified. Hitler probably thought he was a pretty rad dude. Jeffrey Dahmer probably liked the taste of humans. What's your point? That is just more evidence that morality is a concept and not some concrete edict written on our hearts by a sky daddy.

Morality is a concept. I can ask you to picture a doorknob. When you imagine a doorknob it may be very different than the picture I have in my mind as a doorknob. Is the concept of doorknobs somehow negated by that? Have humans not refined the concept over the centuries? So yes, morality can evolve through a society and be refined but not everyone has to share that same morality.

The point is that concepts are able to be disregarded or transcended without impunity.

Example of such concepts: democracy, materialism, religion, human government, marriage.

You can reject these concepts as right or wrong and be considered a "normal human".

You cannot reject the immutable sense of morality that says it is wrong to murder millions of people despite your own ideologies and be considered a "normal human being".

That is not a concept. That is ingrained in humanity.
But it is special to humanity, it is not found in the animal kingdom.
It therefore is not a product of biological evolution.

[RobotElvis]

Cannot reject******

[leewong]

....

"You can reject these concepts as right or wrong and be considered a "normal human"."

You can be considered as normal by some and immoral by others. What's the point?

"You cannot reject the immutable sense of morality that says it is wrong to murder millions of people despite your own ideologies and be considered a "normal human being"."

People do all the time. Whole societies do even. Nazi Germany, ISIS, and North Korea come to mind. Just more proof that morality is a concept.

"That is not a concept. That is ingrained in humanity."

If it was engrained in humanity we wouldnt have wars, genocide, and murder. Like I said before, Hitler probably thought he was a pretty rad dude.

"But it is special to humanity, it is not found in the animal kingdom."

Both humans and animals kill each other. Both animals and humans can live in societies where they cooperate and only kill each other occasionally.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

It's like the dude never saw a pack of elephants or a pod of dolphins or whateverit'scalled of penguins.

[leewong]

It's like the dude never saw a pack of elephants or a pod of dolphins or whateverit'scalled of penguins.

Ants, bees, wolves, bacteria, birds, fish, etc.

[katrik]

Fuck religion..! Yay science!

[RobotElvis]

"You can reject these concepts as right or wrong and be considered a "normal human"."

You can be considered as normal by some and immoral by others. What's the point?

"You cannot reject the immutable sense of morality that says it is wrong to murder millions of people despite your own ideologies and be considered a "normal human being"."

People do all the time. Whole societies do even. Nazi Germany, ISIS, and North Korea come to mind. Just more proof that morality is a concept.

"That is not a concept. That is ingrained in humanity."

If it was engrained in humanity we wouldnt have wars, genocide, and murder. Like I said before, Hitler probably thought he was a pretty rad dude.

"But it is special to humanity, it is not found in the animal kingdom."

Both humans and animals kill each other. Both animals and humans can live in societies where they cooperate and only kill each other occasionally.

So then the actions of the nazis, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, et centra are not immoral but simply a rejection of a concept.

[leewong]

So then the actions of the nazis, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, et centra are not immoral but simply a rejection of a concept.

No, they were immoral according to my morality but moral according to theirs. They didnt reject the concept of morality itself. Instead, they had a different concept of what morality is.

If everyone had the same morals "written in their hearts" as you suggest, we wouldnt see different views on what it is to be good or evil in every society. Even within those societies the concepts are debated and change over time.

[paulgiamatti]

It is both a man-made concept, not supernatural, and something that is innate us. Just because psychopathy and sociopathy are also innate in us doesn't make this less true.

[paulgiamatti]

we wouldnt see different views on what it is to be good or evil in every society.

This statement falls in direct contrast to the hundreds of civilized nations across the world that would beg to differ.

[iruinedyourday]

So what made humans capable of morality? It would have to be our high intelligence.

So how does a mind evolve to the point of having morality and intelligence? After all a mind is not biological it cannot evolve and grow on a Darwinian biological model.

Morality is just a concept your consciousness labeled to a survival instinct. You know deep down, not helping an old lady up after she falls over will potentially not get you laid by the hit girl who may be watching from across the street, or if your spouse found out you just looked on and didn't help when you tell the story.

Emotions are your brain helping your body navigate from point a to point b safety. Fear, to protect you from running out into danger. Love, to coerse you into procreating and staying with your mate to protect your offspring.

Is a bird in love because it stays with the same mated or life? Yes. Does a tiger compassionate because it cares for another species orphaned baby? Yea. But is any of that anydifferant than it's need to feed or sleep? No.

Morality is just a mechanism to make you a part if the circle of life, labeled morality by out brains. We are all dust in the wind.

[iruinedyourday]

Sorry typos, my iphone isn't giant yet.

[paulgiamatti]

I guess this just seems more simple to me than it does to others. It's an evolving concept, sure, but it's derived from our natural ability to help one another and show solidarity.

The systematic slaughter of Jews was not a different kind of morality. This was amorality. Let's be clear on this.

[leewong]

This statement falls in direct contrast to the hundreds of civilized nations across the world that would beg to differ.

No, it doesnt. Name two societies that have exact matching concepts of what it is to be moral. There arent two let alone hundreds. Why does Saudi Arabia law differ from US law for instance? Completely different concepts of what it is to be moral.

[iruinedyourday]

No, it doesnt. Name two societies that have exact matching concepts of what it is to be moral. There arent two let alone hundreds. Why does Saudi Arabia law differ from US law for instance? Completely different concepts of what it is to be moral.

Uh what? you want two separate cultures that do two separate things exactly the same, specifically mortality?

most agree you don't just kill a stranger because they called you names on a forum.

If they do, they are currently under an oppressive regime. But in that instance they don't let you use forums so one cancels the other out!

No but seriously, are you insane? All societies have evolved drastically similar across the globe with minor differences in laws because they laws are written by different people.

I don't know what side of the argument you stand on, hopefully you're on the god created everything side, because if you are, then its so easy to counter ague that laws are different because people are different therefore there is no one god creating law for all mankind.

[paulgiamatti]

The United States and Canada. Canada and the United Kingdom. Ireland and Scotland. Sweden and Finland. Every secular democracy in existence, every free state protected by the United Nations can easily come to a consensus on what constitutes good and evil.

Just because there are some countries which are indeed theocratic dictatorships lead by cruel and malevolent despots who oppress their women, spread toxic religious fundamentalism, subjugate free speech and murder their innocent civilians doesn't mean they deserve to operate under the pretense of morality. That would be an insult to every country which has fought so hard to uphold it.

[leewong]

Uh what? you want two separate cultures that do two separate things exactly the same, specifically mortality?

most agree you don't just kill a stranger because they called you names on a forum.

If they do, they are currently under an oppressive regime. But in that instance they don't let you use forums so one cancels the other out!

No but seriously, are you insane? All societies have evolved drastically similar across the globe with minor differences in laws because they laws are written by different people.

I don't know what side of the argument you stand on, hopefully you're on the god created everything side, because if you are, then its so easy to counter ague that laws are different because people are different therefore there is no one god creating law for all mankind.

Even within the US the states disagree on when or if it is ok to kill another human. These arent minor differences. They are differences seen in every single human on the planet. No two people possess the same morality let alone two nations. I dont know why you are arguing against something so very obvious and true.

Yes, many nations share similar notions of right and wrong. Murder for instance, is considered bad. But every society and every human has a differing definition of what murder is. Where one society would feel justified in killing a person for drinking and driving another society would only make you pay a fine and consider the latter to be barbaric and murderous.

[paulgiamatti]

hopefully you're on the god created everything side

Mr. Wong has been a strong proponent of secular atheism thus far, and it's been a joy to read his postings but I do have to stress this point on morality. We must not fall into this trap of confusion and conflation; morality and amorality are easily defined just like religion and secular humanism, atheism and theism, creationism and evolution.

[paulgiamatti]

Capital punishment, something I'm very much opposed to, is indeed a point of contention among many free states, but these are small nuances. One psychopath who went on a killing spree being murdered by lethal injection is not the same thing as the oppression of an entire people based on religious creed or ethnicity.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

No, it doesnt. Name two societies that have exact matching concepts of what it is to be moral. There arent two let alone hundreds. Why does Saudi Arabia law differ from US law for instance? Completely different concepts of what it is to be moral.
This is correct.
Uh what? you want two separate cultures that do two separate things exactly the same, specifically mortality?

most agree you don't just kill a stranger because they called you names on a forum.

If they do, they are currently under an oppressive regime. But in that instance they don't let you use forums so one cancels the other out!

No but seriously, are you insane? All societies have evolved drastically similar across the globe with minor differences in laws because they laws are written by different people.

I don't know what side of the argument you stand on, hopefully you're on the god created everything side, because if you are, then its so easy to counter ague that laws are different because people are different therefore there is no one god creating law for all mankind.
Stop appealing to emotion and look at the argument for what it is. The claim was that "hundreds are exactly the same", the counter argument is "a few are similar though *insert ad-hominem*"? As a fellow secularist I find it insulting that you are neither thoughtful nor logical in the bulk of your responses.


The United States and Canada. Canada and the United Kingdom. Ireland and Scotland. Sweden and Finland. Every secular democracy in existence, every free state protected by the United Nations can easily come to a consensus on what constitutes good and evil.

Just because there are some countries which are indeed theocratic dictatorships lead by cruel and malevolent despots who oppress their women, spread toxic religious fundamentalism, subjugate free speech and murder their innocent civilians doesn't mean they deserve to operate under the pretense of morality. That would be an insult to every country which has fought so hard to uphold it.

Between the US and Canada, environmental laws, gun laws, religious expression laws. Those are just off the top of my head.
Canada to the UK. I'll give you a big one. In Canada circumcision is routine, in the UK (all of europe in fact) it's abhorrently immoral unless you're Muslim/Jewish.
Sweden and Finland are similar but neither are anything like the US or Canada.

I could keep going...

[iruinedyourday]

This is correct.

Stop appealing to emotion and look at the argument for what it is. The claim was that "hundreds are exactly the same", the counter argument is "a few are similar though *insert ad-hominem*"? As a fellow secularist I find it insulting that you are neither thoughtful nor logical in the bulk of your responses.




Between the US and Canada, environmental laws, gun laws, religious expression laws. Those are just off the top of my head.
Canada to the UK. I'll give you a big one. In Canada circumcision is routine, in the UK (all of europe in fact) it's abhorrently immoral unless you're Muslim/Jewish.
Sweden and Finland are similar but neither are anything like the US or Canada.

I could keep going...

kaga fuck your face and stop just saying the same dumb shit over and over again. Nobody likes you

[paulgiamatti]

Again, small nuances in comparison to the systematic oppression of people based on religious creed or ethnicity. Just because I can carry a gun in country A but not country B doesn't mean both countries can't come to a consensus on what constitutes genocide or what is considered evil and oppressive.

[paulgiamatti]

And I feel like we're getting a bit off track here. Just because some countries don't regard minor infractions like genital mutilation as immoral and reprehensible doesn't mean they are an immoral and reprehensible nation. I'm stressing the big issues here for good reason; they are the deciding issues in whether or not we can or should consider a nation as operating under any sense of morality.

[Eliseus]

This is correct.

Stop appealing to emotion and look at the argument for what it is. The claim was that "hundreds are exactly the same", the counter argument is "a few are similar though *insert ad-hominem*"? As a fellow secularist I find it insulting that you are neither thoughtful nor logical in the bulk of your responses.




Between the US and Canada, environmental laws, gun laws, religious expression laws. Those are just off the top of my head.
Canada to the UK. I'll give you a big one. In Canada circumcision is routine, in the UK (all of europe in fact) it's abhorrently immoral unless you're Muslim/Jewish.
Sweden and Finland are similar but neither are anything like the US or Canada.

I could keep going...

This is so hypocritical. In earlier posts I pointed out examples and comparisons to exactly what someone claimed, and get torn apart for "I should apparently know what he means" or "I don't like your answer so I'm going to laugh" type responses. Now to validate your argument, you argue that you base your opinion off "exactly what he claims" and act like you don't know what he really means. This thread is just so out of hand with misinformation and people spewing out advice that they don't even take.

[Eliseus]

I've tried to stay out of the past few pages and just find the read interesting, but you guys are so fucking retarded it's mind boggling how much you contradict what you say or imply in other posts.

[leewong]

Again, small nuances in comparison to the systematic oppression of people based on religious creed or ethnicity. Just because I can carry a gun in country A but not country B doesn't mean both countries can't come to a consensus on what constitutes genocide or what is considered evil and oppressive.

Yes, some societies can agree on some points and come to a consensus. I in no way see how that negates the fact that every human on earth possesses a different sense of morality. Societies do what they see as their best interest and so do humans. It isnt surprising to see animals agreeing with each other to form a mutually beneficial pact. It is exactly what you would expect.

[paulgiamatti]

Yes, some societies can agree on some points and come to a consensus. I in no way see how that negates the fact that every human on earth possesses a different sense of morality.

I'm not trying to negate that fact, but merely overshadow it with the bigger and more important issues. The smaller issues shouldn't be ignored, but they should be secondary to the larger and more pressing ones.

Societies do what they see as their best interest and so do humans. It isnt surprising to see animals agreeing with each other to form a mutually beneficial pact. It is exactly what you would expect.

Completely agree.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

minor infractions like genital mutilation.

Lol really? No wonder the social justice warrior who thinks a cat call equals rape is agreeing with you. You're concept of morality is so warped there's no point in even discussing it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Your* fuck Swype

[paulgiamatti]

If you read my post properly you'd see that I called it immoral and reprehensible, but if you think genital mutilation is just as bad as genocide then that's your problem and not mine.

[paulgiamatti]

And I've never once equated cat calling with rape, that's a complete misrepresentation of anything I've posted and clearly indicates some kind of comprehension problem on your behalf.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

If you read my post properly you'd see that I called it immoral and reprehensible, but if you think genital mutilation is just as bad as genocide then that's your problem and not mine.
You made the original claim not I. Don't blame reading comprehension on your inability to clarify your statements. Levels of immorality are irrelevant when talking about "universal morality" so I don't see what your point is.
And I've never once equated cat calling with rape, that's a complete misrepresentation of anything I've posted and clearly indicates some kind of comprehension problem on your behalf.

You did not. Iruinedyourday however does and decided to take your side on the argument which if you read my post again, was clearly stated.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

kaga fuck your face and stop just saying the same dumb shit over and over again. Nobody likes you

Another typical SJW response.

And you kids wonder why you're losing #gamergate so horribly. Gonna Doxx me next?

[iruinedyourday]

You did not. Iruinedyourday however does and decided to take your side on the argument which if you read my post again, was clearly stated.

suck my dick, kaga. You read no posts, you just say the same dumb shit over and over and disagree with everyone.

[paulgiamatti]

Then I'll simply ask if anyone else thought I was being unclear in my original statement that infractions like genital mutilation, though minor in the grand scheme of horrific crimes perpetrated upon humanity, are indeed immoral and reprehensible but shouldn't be the determining factor in whether a free state deserves a moral pass. If you can't see how that's relevant to universal morality, then that's no problem of mine.

You did not. Iruinedyourday however does and decided to take your side on the argument which if you read my post again, was clearly stated.

Ah, then I misunderstood you here, though I have a feeling iruinedyourday will have something else to say about it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

suck my dick, kaga. You read no posts, you just say the same dumb shit over and over and disagree with everyone.

Another typical SJW response.

And you kids wonder why you're losing #gamergate so horribly. Gonna Doxx me next?

[paulgiamatti]

Looks like he beat me to the punch.

[iruinedyourday]

Morality would not save kaga from me, the only thing protecting him is law.

[leewong]

I'm not trying to negate that fact, but merely overshadow it with the bigger and more important issues. The smaller issues shouldn't be ignored, but they should be secondary to the larger and more pressing ones.


These arent minor differences. Even within a society people can disagree so passionately that they start killing each other...aka the Civil War.

People having a different idea of when killing another is justified is not some minor nuance. It is a question every society and every human wrestles with and has differing opinions on.

[paulgiamatti]

Yes, but the American Civil War is a perfect example of something resulting from the pressing issues that I'm highlighting, not from something like capital punishment.

I'm not saying capital punishment, or gun control, or genital mutilation are minor nuances. I'm saying they are minor nuances in comparison to the massive atrocities that people are capable of committing against humanity.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Then I'll simply ask if anyone else thought I was being unclear in my original statement that infractions like genital mutilation, though minor in the grand scheme of horrific crimes perpetrated upon humanity, are indeed immoral and reprehensible but shouldn't be the determining factor in whether a free state deserves a moral pass. If you can't see how that's relevant to universal morality, then that's no problem of mine.

I would rather go back to the original point as opposed to arguing semantics (not disregarding what you are saying, I in fact agree with most of it, it is not relevant to the original question is all).

The Religious claim is that either a. Morality is in our hearts because of God or b. Humans are universally immoral without the Bible. They pick one or the other depending on which suits their purposes at what time.

Secularists (I at least) are aware that while morality is something, it's a mere concept and is absolutely not universally uniform, but varying types of morality (universally?) exist among (most) animal species, man included. Is it hereditary or socially constructed or both? Honestly I have no fucking clue. I do know that hereditary morality would be subject to change in the same way that hair color, height, intelligence, etc. have variations within the same gene pool.

In short I think the original question was malformed.

[paulgiamatti]

I simply disagree with you when you say it's a mere concept, that's all. I think it's both a man-made concept as well as innate in us, and derived from our natural ability to love and be compassionate toward one another.

[iruinedyourday]

Morality is a survival instinct ffs. Its not some godly thing bestowed upon us.

The more moral you are the more you help the tribe survive the safer you are. Period.

[paulgiamatti]

So I agree with you in a sense that it's not universally uniform, because as we all know everyone possesses their own mind and their own circumstances in which they live. Some people end up sociopaths, others humanitarians.

I do think that as modern science progresses we'll end up finding ways to correct mental afflictions like sociopathy and psychopathy, which will curb the stigmatization surrounding such afflictions. But until then, we do have to live and find a way to deal with sickly people like Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler and the like.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Morality is a survival instinct ffs. Its not some godly thing bestowed upon us.

The more moral you are the more you help the tribe survive the safer you are. Period.

That sounds too absolute though. Is it at times not more helpful for your tribe to wipe out a neighboring tribe whether it be competing for scarce resources or as a firm of self defense?

[leewong]

I simply disagree with you when you say it's a mere concept, that's all. I think it's both a man-made concept as well as innate in us, and derived from our natural ability to love and be compassionate toward one another.

Empathy is innate. Morality springs from empathy and our ability to reason...both being biological. So I would say it depends on where you draw the line.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Form*

[paulgiamatti]

Empathy is innate. Morality springs from empathy and our ability to reason...both being biological.

Yeah, I think this is a good way of putting it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Empathy is innate. Morality springs from empathy and our ability to reason...both being biological. So I would say it depends on where you draw the line.

Yeah, I think this is a good way of putting it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

To clarify, when I said that morality was conceptual, I was referring to the ways that morality gets broken down or described. Morality exists in the same way that consciousness exists, semantical arguments aside of course.

[RobotElvis]

No, it doesnt. Name two societies that have exact matching concepts of what it is to be moral. There arent two let alone hundreds. Why does Saudi Arabia law differ from US law for instance? Completely different concepts of what it is to be moral.

You are missing the point of immutable morality. Laws do not define morality.
We need no laws to tell us that murder is wrong. It is a human trait to know murder is wrong. In every culture it is wrong for one individual to murder in cold blood another human. That is not a concept but a fact.

You tried to use a doorknob to illustrate concept.
But a doorknob serves a base function. Despite the different designs that have been conceived for a doorknob unless it serves the function as a lever with which to pull a door shut or to activate a mechanical device such as a latch it is not a doorknob.
A doorknob must serve a base function, anything outside of that function is an unnatural use of that doorknob and it no longer serves the purpose of being a doorknob.

So a doorknob is no more a concept than morality is.
Both have a functional use and any unnatural use of either one means it must be set apart from its natural function.

[iruinedyourday]

That sounds too absolute though. Is it at times not more helpful for your tribe to wipe out a neighboring tribe whether it be competing for scarce resources or as a firm of self defense?

that is a totaly different survival instinct than the one that takes over AFTER you wipe out that tribe allowing you to live in harmony with your brothers and sisters instaed of just raping and murdering your sister and brother.

Every emotion, is just survival instincts.

We are nothing more than an animal with a sense of self worth that provides us with the desire to procreate & avoid death, with a side effect of thinking we are more special than are.

All we are is dust in the wind.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You are missing the point of immutable morality. Laws do not define morality.
We need no laws to tell us that murder is wrong. It is a human trait to know murder is wrong. In every culture it is wrong for one individual to murder in cold blood another human. That is not a concept but a fact.

You tried to use a doorknob to illustrate concept.
But a doorknob serves a base function. Despite the different designs that have been conceived for a doorknob unless it serves the function as a lever with which to pull a door shut or to activate a mechanical device such as a latch it is not a doorknob.
A doorknob must serve a base function, anything outside of that function is an unnatural use of that doorknob and it no longer serves the purpose of being a doorknob.

So a doorknob is no more a concept than morality is.
Both have a functional use and any unnatural use of either one means it must be set apart from its natural function.

Murder is not universally "wrong" in every society. If that was true honor killings wouldn't be a thing. ISIS beheadings wouldn't be a thing. The Soviet Union would not have been a thing. The conquest of the Americas... do you get the picture yet?

[paulgiamatti]

Both have a functional use and any unnatural use of either one means it must be set apart from its natural function.

I think I know what you mean here, but I'm inclined to say that I disagree and that morality should be more simple than this. Instead of saying that atrocious, reprehensible crimes are a perversion of morality, I'd say they're simply a result of the exploitation of superstitious beliefs. It's not morality in a different, perverted form; it's amorality. It's no longer moral in any way.

[Barkingturtle]

You are missing the point of immutable morality. Laws do not define morality.
We need no laws to tell us that murder is wrong. It is a human trait to know murder is wrong. In every culture it is wrong for one individual to murder in cold blood another human. That is not a concept but a fact.


Hahaha, no.

Nothing is absolute as you'd like it to be. There is no good, nor evil. Morality is the sum of many choices, not some divine seed planted in the hearts of men.

That you view the world in such a simplistic way is your right, and it's very quaint, but it also disqualifies you from being taken seriously at the adult table.

[Barkingturtle]

I think I know what you mean here, but I'm inclined to say that I disagree and that morality should be more simple than this. Instead of saying that atrocious, reprehensible crimes are a perversion of morality, I'd say they're simply a result of the exploitation of superstitious beliefs. It's not morality in a different, perverted form; it's amorality. It's no longer moral in any way.

Well you should can't just redefine word based on your ignorance, you dumb fuck.

[paulgiamatti]

Nor can you make baseless accusations against someone based on yours.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, I mean, you can, but it's no skin off my back.

[Barkingturtle]

I'm glad you finally conceded.

[RobotElvis]

Murder is not universally "wrong" in every society. If that was true honor killings wouldn't be a thing. ISIS beheadings wouldn't be a thing. The Soviet Union would not have been a thing. The conquest of the Americas... do you get the picture yet?
Not applicable. It is still wrong. People would try to leave totalitarian regimes if it was acceptable within human morality. But they do, because it's wrong.

As I said their actions go against the base principles of morality, principles they are universal. Just because people have gone beyond their moral senses does not mean that they have never had morality.
That is why we say people like these must be brought to justice.
Justice is a part of our morality.

Animals could care less about justice. They have no morality.

[Barkingturtle]

Pure drivel.

[RobotElvis]

I would rather go back to the original point as opposed to arguing semantics (not disregarding what you are saying, I in fact agree with most of it, it is not relevant to the original question is all).

The Religious claim is that either a. Morality is in our hearts because of God or b. Humans are universally immoral without the Bible. They pick one or the other depending on which suits their purposes at what time.

Secularists (I at least) are aware that while morality is something, it's a mere concept and is absolutely not universally uniform, but varying types of morality (universally?) exist among (most) animal species, man included. Is it hereditary or socially constructed or both? Honestly I have no fucking clue. I do know that hereditary morality would be subject to change in the same way that hair color, height, intelligence, etc. have variations within the same gene pool.

In short I think the original question was malformed.
Yes but morality has everything to do with "f:ck religion". That is a statement based upon the morality of religion. Plain and simple.

So the issue is where does morality come from? It cannot be proven to be a product of biological evolution, or it plus be present in the animal kingdom.

[iruinedyourday]

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/awesome_thread.jpg

[Barkingturtle]

So the issue is where does morality come from? It cannot be proven to be a product of biological evolution, or it plus be present in the animal kingdom.

Again, you don't even know what the fucking word means.

Morality is present in the animal kingdom. That which governs an animal's behavior, gives it its own sense of right and wrong -- that is its morality.

Morality is completely mutable.

Say you had a child. Crazy, I know. Say it shared your morals, because you taught it your version of right and wrong. Now, say someone abducts your child and locks it in a closet for a few years, only letting it out to perform extreme, gonzo sex acts upon it. Sorry, forgot where I was going with this.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yes but morality has everything to do with "f:ck religion". That is a statement based upon the morality of religion. Plain and simple.

So the issue is where does morality come from? It cannot be proven to be a product of biological evolution, or it plus be present in the animal kingdom.

Apes that are taught sign language often express firm grasps on empathy and morality. Many have pets and when asked why they don't simply eat them, express that they love them. When the pet dies they tell us they are sad and that they miss the pets.

It's not limited to primates either. It doesn't take a marine biologist to see clearly their grasp of moral and ethical concepts.

Not found in the animal kingdom? Garbage. Next you'll claim that homosexual behavior is absent in the animal kingdom. :rolleyes:

[paulgiamatti]

Again, you don't even know what the fucking word means.

Just because you're having difficulty with the language, don't project it on others. The only one demonstrating the inability to understand words here is you.

[leewong]

Not applicable. It is still wrong. People would try to leave totalitarian regimes if it was acceptable within human morality. But they do, because it's wrong.


And some people try to rise to the top of those regimes. Every human has a differing sense of what is and is not moral. Every example you have given illustrates it.

[paulgiamatti]

The building blocks of morality are found in the animal kingdom which, if I might remind everyone, we are all a part of as a higher primate species. But to say a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee caring for its young or working in a group is behaving in a morally sound, ethically centered way is a bit silly. I'm not saying those things are immoral; quite to the contrary, they are clear indications that the early beginnings of morality were present in them before we ever existed.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The building blocks of morality are found in the animal kingdom which, if I might remind everyone, we are all a part of as a higher primate species. But to say a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee caring for its young or working in a group is behaving in a morally sound, ethically centered way is a bit silly. I'm not saying those things are immoral; quite to the contrary, they are clear indications that the early beginnings of morality were present in them before we ever existed.

Where specifically do you draw the line at what constitutes "morality" then?

[katrik]

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/awesome_thread.jpg

Lol

[RobotElvis]

Apes that are taught sign language often express firm grasps on empathy and morality. Many have pets and when asked why they don't simply eat them, express that they love them. When the pet dies they tell us they are sad and that they miss the pets.

It's not limited to primates either. It doesn't take a marine biologist to see clearly their grasp of moral and ethical concepts.

Not found in the animal kingdom? Garbage. Next you'll claim that homosexual behavior is absent in the animal kingdom. :rolleyes: do apes feel guilt? Morality and empathy are far different. Empathy is an emotion morality checks and balances emotions.

And yes homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom. Your point?

[RobotElvis]

The building blocks of morality are found in the animal kingdom which, if I might remind everyone, we are all a part of as a higher primate species. But to say a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee caring for its young or working in a group is behaving in a morally sound, ethically centered way is a bit silly. I'm not saying those things are immoral; quite to the contrary, they are clear indications that the early beginnings of morality were present in them before we ever existed.

That is my point, what is being called morality in the animal kingdom is simply instinct.
To say that a pair of birds that mates for life is moral means nothing.
That is not morality, it is an instinctual display of duty and loyalty.
Someone said that this shows they are capable of love. In a way that's true.
But does it display the full range of human love? Would a male wood duck take a bullet from a hunter for his mate? No. His instinct of fight or flight kicks in and he takes care of himself.
But the moral human would lay his life down for his wife whom he loved. If he fled for his own safety like an animal he would be ridiculed as not being moral.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

That is my point, what is being called morality in the animal kingdom is simply instinct.
To say that a pair of birds that mates for life is moral means nothing.
That is not morality, it is an instinctual display of duty and loyalty.
Someone said that this shows they are capable of love. In a way that's true.
But does it display the full range of human love? Would a male wood duck take a bullet from a hunter for his mate? No. His instinct of fight or flight kicks in and he takes care of himself.
But the moral human would lay his life down for his wife whom he loved. If he fled for his own safety like an animal he would be ridiculed as not being moral.

do apes feel guilt? Morality and empathy are far different. Empathy is an emotion morality checks and balances emotions.

And yes homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom. Your point?

Pure drivel.

[Glenzig]

Funny that people like Kaga will defer to the animal kingdom when the subject of how morality could have evolved is presented. Yet when there is a group such as ISIS that is acting in an obviously and out rightly immoral way, what does he liken them to?

[Qoute]You keep saying 'reasoning' as if these animals are capable of reason.[Quote]

Animals. Incapable of reason. Therefore incapable of reasoning out what is moral or immoral. Animals.

[Glenzig]

Quote didn't exactly work.

[RobotElvis]

And some people try to rise to the top of those regimes. Every human has a differing sense of what is and is not moral. Every example you have given illustrates it.

No it illustrates that a base moral code exists in humanity. Or else nobody would be appalled at the atrocities we see in the world. We would just accept it as part of life.

[Barkingturtle]

No it illustrates that a base moral code exists in humanity. Or else nobody would be appalled at the atrocities we see in the world. We would just accept it as part of life.

Again, you're describing empathy, fuckwit.

[Barkingturtle]

Again, you're describing empathy, fuckwit.

Actually, you're not even doing that any more.

You're just forcing your own moral compass on the entire human race.

Typical narcissistic, myopic, creationist.

[RobotElvis]

Again, you're describing empathy, fuckwit.

No empathy does not prevent murder. In some cases it encourages it.

[leewong]

...

"That is my point, what is being called morality in the animal kingdom is simply instinct."

I would say in order to have morality you would have to be capable of abstract thought. Empathy and compassion are both shown in the animal kingdom. Humans base morality on these same instincts.

"But does it display the full range of human love?"

I am not sure why it matters. I dont think anyone here is trying to argue that birds possess a morality like humans do. As I said above...morality is something that requires both empathy and a mind capable of abstract thought. They most certainly possess empathy but lack something else.

"Would a male wood duck take a bullet from a hunter for his mate?"

Would a bee die for it's queen? Not sure what your example is suppose to prove other than you like to cherry pick.

[Ahldagor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsM4IwXWmF0

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Funny that people like Kaga will defer to the animal kingdom when the subject of how morality could have evolved is presented. Yet when there is a group such as ISIS that is acting in an obviously and out rightly immoral way, what does he liken them to?

[Qoute]You keep saying 'reasoning' as if these animals are capable of reason.[Quote]

Animals. Incapable of reason. Therefore incapable of reasoning out what is moral or immoral. Animals.

"These animals" is a turn of phrase. Just because someone says "god damnit" doesn't mean they believe in God.

[Ahldagor]

[QUOTE=Glenzig;1621422]Funny that people like Kaga will defer to the animal kingdom when the subject of how morality could have evolved is presented. Yet when there is a group such as ISIS that is acting in an obviously and out rightly immoral way, what does he liken them to?

[Qoute]You keep saying 'reasoning' as if these animals are capable of reason.

"These animals" is a turn of phrase. Just because someone says "god damnit" doesn't mean they believe in God.

You're really ignorant of human-conceptual-constructions.

[leewong]

No it illustrates that a base moral code exists in humanity. Or else nobody would be appalled at the atrocities we see in the world. We would just accept it as part of life.

Or it could mean that particular person thinks they will most likely come to harm from such a system instead of gaining from it. That doesnt show morality. It shows self preservation...an instinct all animals possess to a degree.

[Glenzig]

[QUOTE=Glenzig;1621422]Funny that people like Kaga will defer to the animal kingdom when the subject of how morality could have evolved is presented. Yet when there is a group such as ISIS that is acting in an obviously and out rightly immoral way, what does he liken them to?

[Qoute]You keep saying 'reasoning' as if these animals are capable of reason.

"These animals" is a turn of phrase. Just because someone says "god damnit" doesn't mean they believe in God.

So you don't think that they act like animals? You just used that as an illustration. If animals are inherently moral and empathetic, how does it serve as an illustration? There would be no meaning behind it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

[QUOTE=KagatobLuvsAnimu;1621443]

So you don't think that they act like animals? You just used that as an illustration. If animals are inherently moral and empathetic, how does it serve as an illustration? There would be no meaning behind it.

You're splitting hairs at this point.

Just because I acknowledge that morality exists in the animal kingdom and can see evidence of it does not mean I'm claiming to know where the line is drawn as to whether or not all animals possess it and which ones do/don't.

I describe radical Muslims as animals in the same way that when I make a sandwich a tomato is a vegetable.

[leewong]

[QUOTE=Glenzig;1621450]

You're splitting hairs at this point.

Just because I acknowledge that morality exists in the animal kingdom and can see evidence of it does not mean I'm claiming to know where the line is drawn as to whether or not all animals possess it and which ones do/don't.

I describe radical Muslims as animals in the same way that when I make a sandwich a tomato is a vegetable.

This is where you and I disagree. We can definitely find traits like empathy, compassion, etc. in the animal kingdom but I wouldnt call that morality. Those are only traits we label as moral. Morality is a concept and concepts are formed by abstract thought. If an animal isnt capable of thinking abstractly then it cannot possess a morality. It can have traits that are moral to a morality possessing being like humans but cannot itself have morality.

[Glenzig]

[QUOTE=Glenzig;1621450]

You're splitting hairs at this point.

Just because I acknowledge that morality exists in the animal kingdom and can see evidence of it does not mean I'm claiming to know where the line is drawn as to whether or not all animals possess it and which ones do/don't.

I describe radical Muslims as animals in the same way that when I make a sandwich a tomato is a vegetable.

You're not ascribing any characteristics to the tomato. You're simply stating a fact. Stating that someone acts without moral reason would be stating a fact. When you say someone is acting like an animal, you are illustrating their actions by comparing them to something easily recognizable. An animal. Now if animals were inherently empathetic and moral, this illustration would fall flat. But everyone knew what you were saying. Everyone recognizes that animals act without moral compass.

[Glenzig]

I totally messed everyone's quotes up with my post.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You're not ascribing any characteristics to the tomato. You're simply stating a fact. Stating that someone acts without moral reason would be stating a fact. When you say someone is acting like an animal, you are illustrating their actions by comparing them to something easily recognizable. An animal. Now if animals were inherently empathetic and moral, this illustration would fall flat. But everyone knew what you were saying. Everyone recognizes that animals act without moral compass.

Um... a tomato is a fruit.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

This is where you and I disagree. We can definitely find traits like empathy, compassion, etc. in the animal kingdom but I wouldnt call that morality. Those are only traits we label as moral. Morality is a concept and concepts are formed by abstract thought. If an animal isnt capable of thinking abstractly then it cannot possess a morality. It can have traits that are moral to a morality possessing being like humans but cannot itself have morality.

How do you know where to draw the line though?

[Glenzig]

Um... a tomato is a fruit.

Or in this case a straw man.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Or in this case a straw man.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/v945BMIfRgOThGxyZuQu_No_No_Consuela_.jpg

[Glenzig]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/v945BMIfRgOThGxyZuQu_No_No_Consuela_.jpg

So you're saying that the tomato is acting like a vegetable?

[leewong]

How do you know where to draw the line though?

Not sure what you mean by draw the line here. Abstract thought and empathy I suppose. You cannot have morality without those two essential ingredients. I am not arguing no other animal is incapable of abstract thought and empathy. It wouldnt surprise me if apes and chimpanzees could. If they can then I would say they possess a morality.

An ant ,on the other hand, has no possible way to think abstractly. While it may show traits that we would call moral (raising and tending to their young) they dont possess morality only instincts like self-preservation, etc.

Maybe that answers your question...

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So you're saying that the tomato is acting like a vegetable?

It sure as hell tastes like one. Much like the aforementioned Muslims are acting savage and animalistic.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Not sure what you mean by draw the line here. Abstract thought and empathy I suppose. You cannot have morality without those two essential ingredients. I am not arguing no other animal is incapable of abstract thought and empathy. It wouldnt surprise me if apes and chimpanzees could. If they can then I would say they possess a morality.

An ant ,on the other hand, has no possible way to think abstractly. While it may show traits that we would call moral (raising and tending to their young) they dont possess morality only instincts like self-preservation, etc.

Maybe that answers your question...

Your earlier post seemed to imply that the entire animal kingdom was incapable of possessing morality. That's why I asked.

[Glenzig]

It sure as hell tastes like one. Much like the aforementioned Muslims are acting savage and animalistic.

But we inherited our empathy and morality from the animal kingdom. We are just higher animals. Why would that be an illustrative way of describing someone lacking morality? If empathy and morality are readily observable in the animal kingdom, then why would acting animalistic be a bad thing?

[leewong]

Not sure what you mean by draw the line here. Abstract thought and empathy I suppose. You cannot have morality without those two essential ingredients. I am not arguing no other animal is incapable of abstract thought and empathy. It wouldnt surprise me if apes and chimpanzees could. If they can then I would say they possess a morality.

An ant ,on the other hand, has no possible way to think abstractly. While it may show traits that we would call moral (raising and tending to their young) they dont possess morality only instincts like self-preservation, etc.

Maybe that answers your question...

I would like to add something to the requirements for morality...an instinct for self-preservation.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

But we inherited our empathy and morality from the animal kingdom. We are just higher animals. Why would that be an illustrative way of describing someone lacking morality? If empathy and morality are readily observable in the animal kingdom, then why would acting animalistic be a bad thing?

Ask the ones who came up with the phrase dude. I'm not a fucking philosopher. :p

[paulgiamatti]

Where specifically do you draw the line at what constitutes "morality" then?

This is actually a good question which I don't think we have a solid answer to yet. I think as science progresses we will start to draw back the curtain on the subject and be able to definitively say at what point the primate brain began to develop emotional empathy and consistently apply it to behavior toward other sentient creatures.

[leewong]

Ask the ones who came up with the phrase dude. I'm not a fucking philosopher. :p

Whatever you do dont say any phrases like, "paint the town red" or "drink like a fish" around him. He doesnt take his Bible literally but he will take your words.

[RobotElvis]

[QUOTE=KagatobLuvsAnimu;1621455]

This is where you and I disagree. We can definitely find traits like empathy, compassion, etc. in the animal kingdom but I wouldnt call that morality. Those are only traits we label as moral. Morality is a concept and concepts are formed by abstract thought. If an animal isnt capable of thinking abstractly then it cannot possess a morality. It can have traits that are moral to a morality possessing being like humans but cannot itself have morality.

But if animals can show moral traits, which are nothing more than instinct, why did humans evolve beyond animals in their morals? You say because of abstract thought, I agree with you.

But abstract thought is not a biological quality, it is a quality of the mind which is not physical.

This is a gap that cannot be bridged by biological Darwinian evolutionary models.

[RobotElvis]

This is actually a good question which I don't think we have a solid answer to yet. I think as science progresses we will start to draw back the curtain on the subject and be able to definitively say at what point the primate brain began to develop emotional empathy and consistently apply it to behavior toward other sentient creatures.

Or it is easily explained by saying that humans are special creatures that did not evolve from animals, and are inherently morally superior to any physical creation. As I have thus far proved.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, there you have it folks. Just because science doesn't have an answer to every question about our species yet, we were clearly supernaturally conceived by an omnipotent creator that also happened to create the entire universe.

Perfectly logical conclusion.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

But if animals can show moral traits, which are nothing more than instinct, why did humans evolve beyond animals in their morals? You say because of abstract thought, I agree with you.

But abstract thought is not a biological quality, it is a quality of the mind which is not physical.

This is a gap that cannot be bridged by biological Darwinian evolutionary models.

Or it is easily explained by saying that humans are special creatures that did not evolve from animals, and are inherently morally superior to any physical creation. As I have thus far proved.

http://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Spock-logic.jpg

[leewong]

[QUOTE=leewong;1621460]

But if animals can show moral traits, which are nothing more than instinct, why did humans evolve beyond animals in their morals? You say because of abstract thought, I agree with you.

But abstract thought is not a biological quality, it is a quality of the mind which is not physical.

This is a gap that cannot be bridged by biological Darwinian evolutionary models.

The mind is the big grey lump of matter inside your skull. It is a physical object. There is no such thing as a mind separate from a brain. You cannot simply claim the mind exists outside of a physical body and expect everyone to swallow it. Show us all some tangible evidence that is accepted by the broader scientific community.

[RobotElvis]

Whatever you do dont say any phrases like, "paint the town red" or "drink like a fish" around him. He doesnt take his Bible literally but he will take your words.

Ummmm. Don't know if you have a learning disability or not but those things Are as analogous to a situation as the phrase "acting like animals". Here let me break it down for you.

"James drinks like a fish"
Fish live in water so it is a hyperbole to say that he drinks a lot, because fish live in water you get it. If they didn't live in water it would mean nothing.

"James went to paint the town red tonight"
This means he will go to the point if reckless abandon, as if so much blood will be spilled from his drunken brawls the town will be red from blood, because blood is red get it?
If blood was not red it would mean nothing.

"James acts like an animal when he drinks"
He does not act as the same person drunk as he does sober. It's as if he is not human anymore, because he does not display human morality but the morality of an animal, animals aren't human get it?
If animals acted like humans then it would mean nothing.

I hope this lesson in colloquial expressions has helped you.

[RobotElvis]

[QUOTE=RobotElvis;1621489]

The mind is the big grey lump of matter inside your skull. It is a physical object. There is no such thing as a mind separate from a brain. You cannot simply claim the mind exists outside of a physical body and expect everyone to swallow it. Show us all some tangible evidence that is accepted by the broader scientific community.

Animals have brains. Some highly advanced. Why is their mind not as advanced as a humans? After all brain activity is no more than a chemical process. Why don't we see high mind activity in the animal kingdom?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Humans are animals.

The life on earth consists of plants and animals. Nobody with a lick of sense says "plants and animals and humans"

[Barkingturtle]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/36b076d9149498796650d5e07802259a/tumblr_mql3xlmTdO1r93xiko1_500.gif

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Animals have brains. Some highly advanced. Why is their mind not as advanced as a humans? After all brain activity is no more than a chemical process. Why don't we see high mind activity in the animal kingdom?

You make the incorrect assumption that humans have the most advanced brains. Whales brains can process SONAR and bats brains RADAR. Lobsters are biologically immortal and immune to cancer/neurological disorders.

Not that such an attitude is unexpected of a follower of Abraham.

[paulgiamatti]

It just seems so egotistical for someone to think they actually are completely removed from the animal kingdom. As if we just happened to have been put here because the creator of the universe had us in mind. Not any of those other smelly, dumb animals. No, you see, they don't have anything in common with us at all. Those animals are godless, soulless creatures.

[leewong]

Ummmm. Don't know if you have a learning disability or not but those things Are as analogous to a situation as the phrase "acting like animals". Here let me break it down for you.

"James drinks like a fish"
Fish live in water so it is a hyperbole to say that he drinks a lot, because fish live in water you get it. If they didn't live in water it would mean nothing.

"James went to paint the town red tonight"
This means he will go to the point if reckless abandon, as if so much blood will be spilled from his drunken brawls the town will be red from blood, because blood is red get it?
If blood was not red it would mean nothing.

"James acts like an animal when he drinks"
He does not act as the same person drunk as he does sober. It's as if he is not human anymore, because he does not display human morality but the morality of an animal, animals aren't human get it?
If animals acted like humans then it would mean nothing.

I hope this lesson in colloquial expressions has helped you.

Are you high? Here is a quick breakdown cause it seems like you are confused:

1. Someone made a comment about ISIS being animals.
2. You took the phrase as a chance to attack a straw man about animals lacking morality as if this somehow invalidated subjective morality.
3. I made a quick joke about how literal you were being and it went over your head.
4. You responded with nonsense...completely lost

[RobotElvis]

It just seems so egotistical for someone to think they actually are completely removed from the animal kingdom. As if we just happened to have been put here because the creator of the universe had us in mind. Not any of those other smelly, dumb animals. No, you see, they don't have anything in common with us at all. Those animals are godless, soulless creatures.

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution theory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divine and supernatural power to account for things as they are: _the agreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is a gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living; and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not bridge them!"
This "striking agreement" between science and Genesis I, is shown by the fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same order as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was "waste and void"; 2. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep"; 3. Light appears; 4. A clearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the formation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The sun, moon and stars _appear_; 8. Marine animals were created; 9. "Winged fowls" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man was created.
The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is ascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from 1 to 11, which is 39,916,800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as revealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11 letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous order, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never could have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the order.
This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory of evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely inspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The fact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all proven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them, is a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

The fact that any of you can feed and clothe yourselves is astounding.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Look he's bringing up centuries old debunked shit again like it matters.

[RobotElvis]

Are you high? Here is a quick breakdown cause it seems like you are confused:

1. Someone made a comment about ISIS being animals.
2. You took the phrase as a chance to attack a straw man about animals lacking morality as if this somehow invalidated subjective morality.
3. I made a quick joke about how literal you were being and it went over your head.
4. You responded with nonsense...completely lost
I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

[RobotElvis]

Look he's bringing up centuries old debunked shit again like it matters.

Please feel free to be bunk math.

[RobotElvis]

You make the incorrect assumption that humans have the most advanced brains. Whales brains can process SONAR and bats brains RADAR. Lobsters are biologically immortal and immune to cancer/neurological disorders.

Not that such an attitude is unexpected of a follower of Abraham.

Yes that's my point. Highly advanced BRAINS do mean highly advanced MINDS, but that is what we would expect if the mind was simply the brain.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Please feel free to be bunk math.

Put relevant numbers in your formulae then we'll talk.

[RobotElvis]

Yes that's my point. Highly advanced BRAINS do mean highly advanced MINDS, but that is what we would expect if the mind was simply the brain.

Do not mean*****

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yes that's my point. Highly advanced BRAINS do mean highly advanced MINDS, but that is what we would expect if the mind was simply the brain.

Implying technology is the only sign of intelligence in the universe.

[RobotElvis]

Put relevant numbers in your formulae then we'll talk.

11 ways in which science and genesis harmonize.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

11 ways in which science and genesis harmonize.

Bunk.

Genesis clearly states that God put the moon to light the night sky only afterward did he create the Sun, which according to genesis orbits the earth.

[leewong]

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution theory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divine and supernatural power to account for things as they are: _the agreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is a gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living; and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not bridge them!"

Well you heard it here folks. One scientist said something a hundred plus years ago so it must still be considered true. Science is ruled by edict and it is unchanging. No new data is ever added, no new fossils are ever discovered, no new observations are made, and no new experiments are ever performed. DNA analysis, tectonics, and complicated radiometric dating have always existed and alchemy is real!

[RobotElvis]

Bunk.

Genesis clearly states that God put the moon to light the night sky only afterward did he create the Sun, which according to genesis orbits the earth.

No sorry it doesn't you are mistaken. Try again

[RobotElvis]

Well you heard it here folks. One scientist said something a hundred plus years ago so it must still be considered true. Science is ruled by edict and it is unchanging. No new data is ever added, no new fossils are ever discovered, no new observations are made, and no new experiments are ever performed. DNA analysis, tectonics, and complicated radiometric dating have always existed and alchemy is real!

But the gulf between man and animals still exists. There is just no proof in favor of the evolution of man.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

No sorry it doesn't you are mistaken. Try again
Oh, we must have two different versions of the Bible then. Silly me expecting you to have the same version as me when there's hundreds of different versions.
But the gulf between man and animals still exists. There is just no proof in favor of the evolution of man.

Just because you refuse to open your eyes... this is like the 6th time I've had to say that.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You clearly aren't a true Christian because God told me himself that my bible was his true word.

[RobotElvis]

Oh, we must have two different versions of the Bible then. Silly me expecting you to have the same version as me when there's hundreds of different versions.


Just because you refuse to open your eyes... this is like the 6th time I've had to say that.

Let me lay it out for you.

And the earth was waste and void," literally "desolation and emptiness." And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere, "darkness was upon the face of the deep," and doubtless had been for ages.
"And the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters," and _perhaps_ was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.
The First Day's Work. Light Appears.
"And God said, 'Let the light appear'," through the thick vapors. And the light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from the night. "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day." This day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for God's work. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages, may have followed between each day's work as the "days" were not necessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.
Second Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.
"And God said, 'Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven) dividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the thick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air'." This may have continued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.
Third Day's Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.
"And God said, 'Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together into one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear'." The contraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and the draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says, "All land has been under water." Hitchcock says, "The surface of the globe has been a shoreless ocean." "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind." Though the sun was not yet visible on account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was suitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees,--three great classes which represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again intervened The Fourth Day's Work. Sun, moon and stars made visible.
"And God said, 'Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years'." "And God made the two great lights to _appear_," since neither had been seen through the thick clouds, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also to _appear_." Though created first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may have intervened.

[RobotElvis]

You clearly aren't a true Christian because God told me himself that my bible was his true word.

That's fine I will use any bible

[leewong]

But the gulf between man and animals still exists. There is just no proof in favor of the evolution of man.

No proof except the fossil record, geological data, archeological data, DNA analysis, and behavioral studies. I am sure I left some things out but you get the point.

I believe it was you a few pages back going on about "missing links" and "no transitional fossils". The very fact you make those statements show your gross misunderstanding of what evolution is. Every animal on this planet right now has a potential to be a transitional species. Every organisms that ever existed had the potential to be or was a transitional species. That is what evolution is. Species slowly changing over time. We see exactly that in the fossil record.

[paulgiamatti]

And all the irrefutable proof and data backing evolution isn't enough, either. If anything, anything at all about the human species isn't currently explained by modern science, then it must be explained by a creator of the universe. Never mind awaiting new evidence, scientific inquiry, intellectual curiosity - no, we won't be needing those when we can simply point to god and have all our wishes about eternal salvation and vicarious redemption granted in a heartbeat.

[RobotElvis]

No proof except the fossil record, geological data, archeological data, DNA analysis, and behavioral studies. I am sure I left some things out but you get the point.

I believe it was you a few pages back going on about "missing links" and "no transitional fossils". The very fact you make those statements show your gross misunderstanding of what evolution is. Every animal on this planet right now has a potential to be a transitional species. Every organisms that ever existed had the potential to be or was a transitional species. That is what evolution is. Species slowly changing over time. We see exactly that in the fossil record.
Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record. That is, one species that went from one kind to another. Say for instance a fish that became a reptile. Just show me one.

You have billions of years of fossil record, that should mean trillions of fossils that exist. All you need is one.

[RobotElvis]

And all the irrefutable proof and data backing evolution isn't enough, either. If anything, anything at all about the human species isn't currently explained by modern science, then it must be explained by a creator of the universe. Never mind awaiting new evidence, scientific inquiry, intellectual curiosity - no, we won't be needing those when we can simply point to god and have all our wishes about eternal salvation and vicarious redemption granted in a heartbeat.

New findings don't bring answers just more questions.

[RobotElvis]

And all the irrefutable proof and data backing evolution isn't enough, either. If anything, anything at all about the human species isn't currently explained by modern science, then it must be explained by a creator of the universe. Never mind awaiting new evidence, scientific inquiry, intellectual curiosity - no, we won't be needing those when we can simply point to god and have all our wishes about eternal salvation and vicarious redemption granted in a heartbeat.

Analogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not a demonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirms other arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical laws must have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is not God's usual method of creation.
MATHEMATICS.--There is no evolution in the science of mathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is the author of all mathematical principles. The square described on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides, because he made it so. The circumference of a circle is approximately 3.1416 times the diameter because he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms, whether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napierian system with a base of 2.718+ a decimal that never terminates, are possible and reliable only because God made them so. Think what great intelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimal that never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, in order to produce an integral number. Yet God has computed instantaneously every table of logarithms, and every other mathematical table,--no matter how difficult. Thus we have positive proof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and we catch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created the whole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. A part could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; no evolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect from the first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say that the God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system of mathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said? Analogy supports the doctrine of the special creation of man.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record. That is, one species that went from one kind to another. Say for instance a fish that became a reptile. Just show me one.

You have billions of years of fossil record, that should mean trillions of fossils that exist. All you need is one.

Have you never heard of a lungfish? Do you not know what an amphibian is?