But the Uganda health ministry adds a lot of strength

What's been very apparent throughout this thread is that BG doesn't even grasp what morality actually is. He thinks it's a
divine spirit thing that God created. Given that it's some elusive spirit thing he has neglected to even acknowledge what the
rest of you are talking about. You were going off about Obama or society deciding what is moral which illustrates my point further.
Morality is simple a term used to describe what society deems as appropriate behaviour.

Morality embraces a person’s beliefs about the appropriateness or goodness of what he does, thinks, or feels.

Morality isn't a doctrine. It isn't set laws. It isn't carved in stone. It is a person's "beliefs".

So I don't get what you are saying that God created in the first place? Are you simply arguing that God gave us
the ability to judge the approptiateness of what we do, think and feel?

Fuck.

Leave it to the stats guy to catch me padding my stats with the power of Kentucky.

I just didn't think a shit-ton thousands vs two hundred and ninety-nine (almost exclusively creationists) was a wide enough margin.

Some people believe right and wrong is seperate from human opinion.

It is up to the apes.

some people fly planes into buildings

What morality is IS HUMAN OPINION!

You've admitted God never told us what that specific morality is actually.

So if I find a poll that shows that 51%+ people believe that morality is not subjective, you would admit you are wrong?

GET YOUR HANDS OFF OF ME

Some people buy books by Dickie Dawkins

point was people who are following what they think is an objective standard of morality can never agree on what the standard is, and frequently do things that others consider immoral
in the name of their "objective" standard.

it should be obvious that there is no preset objective standard of morality, only what emerges from broad social consensus as a result of collective experience.

if you find a poll that shows that 51%+ of christians think it's moral to stone adulterers i'll admit i'm wrong.

Why would we admit that something that was a rule, that has been fullfilled, is required to live under again? Or do you not understand what Christ did on the cross?

How broad?The entire world, or just the world that makes and sells Ipods? What about our national sovereignty? Is that subject to the opinion of Ghana and Chile? Or just in the borders of the country that is trying to make the standard?

And if a country decides that something is wrong, say abortion, does another country have the right to tell them they are wrong for thinking that?

I actually would like the idea of the majority getting to set all the rules, since I'm a Christian and we are the vast majority in this country. Or do you expect us to let you guys continue spreading your progaganda that is directly opposite from what you are trying to preach? That what is considered wrong by the majority is the law of the land? That pesky constiution thing sure must bother you guys, it gets to say what is right and wrong no matter what every single person in the country thinks.

Your idea of morality is a cute catch phrase, but even you guys don't live by it. You pretend you want the anarchistic legality of majority rule, while living safely behind a curtain of protection offered to you from Judeo-Christian founded principles found in our constitution. But the parasitic nature of atheism is a topic we've already covered.

impressive round of topic-shifting blabber to avoid the issue there.

point was there is no evidence humans are in touch with any kind of preset moral standard. even sounds like you're arguing that yourself above now, which is funny.

yes, broad social consensus means all of humanity. only extremes, such as murder or throwing a drowning man a rope, that are demonstratably bad or good for societies are ever going to reach that level. otherwise without that morality is obviously subjective since there is so little agreement on most things.

You are living safely not behind a curtain of old-ass, slave based ignorance that was SHACKLED by the constitution. That remarkably, for the time, REMARKABLY SECULAR document... you don't live behind the curtain of protection of that stupid ass cliche.

You live behind a curtain of protection offered you by men and women who sacrifice to provide you that protection. Not some fairy tale sacrifice echoed and retold in myth after myth, many before your superstition in particular, in all of the worlds superstitions. But by real people, today, putting their lives on the line for you. Not some ignorant catch-phrase "judo-Christian" slave owner bullshit morality.

That's what allows you to spout your staggeringly ignorant/delusional/brain-damaged/all of the above nonsense -- about evolution for example -- in the face of irrefutable reason and overwhelming evidence and support.

It's what allows me to ad hom all over your face and neck and ankles.

And neither of us be arrested or killed in the process.

Enjoy.

I wish I could properly voice my disagreement with this sentiment. Yet, I can't, so any attempt would make me look like an insensitve jackass. Just know that I spent a good minute and a half trying to put my feelings into words before giving up because, in the end, I don't care all that much.

I would hope that any poll would be 0%, since Jesus himself condemned that. "Any of you without sin, cast the first stone."

It's pretty shocking how little you guys understand about the Bible. You're brainwashed to believe that Christianity is many things that it's not.

Which part? That policemen, firemen, paramedics, soldiers and doctors provide protection from harm? Or that the "Judo-christian" catchphrase is a warped and flawed attempt to make it seem like this country is founded on some christian, moral utopia. Despite the clear call for separation from church and state, and the vast amount of "immorality" in that society. Morality that isn't necessarily any better or worse today, only different?

Regardless, anything you formulate will look like Ghandi in terms of sensitivity when in relation to my posts.

So go ahead and make your case. =P

Hmm, I read your post a bit incorrectly (re: poorly). My argument was going to be with the flawed ideas that

a. the majority of armed forces activity is about "protecting our freedom"
b. the majority of soldiers are driven by anything but the ridiculous notion of judeo-christianity being what makes this country great

But you didn't really say either of those things, so I would have been arguing with empty space.

i was making the point that murder, genocide etc, were in the name of an "objective" standard considered moral at one time, and now are generally not.
and that applies to the whole world, not just christians. those things have gradually come to be considered immoral only through collective social experience.

obviously humanity never was in touch with any pre-existing objective moral standard.

The fact that morality shifted even within the Bible supports crow's point.

Wow. That is an ironic comment.

Who do you think is brainwashing people against Christianity?

BG, you obviously just post to try to incite people and don't believe the blather you post. By definition morality is subjective.
It is a fact not in dispute. I've only been trying to get you to make a simple point. What exactly is the point of the thread? You
seem to be trying to infer that morality came from God, yet you don't even understand what morality is so why does it matter where
it came from. It doesn't matter if it came from God or evolution it's purely subjective so who cares?

If you are trying to make the case that people are good because of God i'd say he did a very poor job of it then.
Again, please explain what exactly you think God gave us during creation.



geez, like crow says. Quit making our point. Right and wrong is subjective. If you are arguing against that you might as well be arguing that a square is a circle. I also laughed how you tried to backhand politics and atheism into the argument in an inverted way.



BG- Can you please give us an example of humanity being in touch with a pre-existing moral standard? You know, evidence to back up your point.
Heck, make it easy. Let us know what the pre-existing moral standard is. You talk to God, ask him.

Thinking more about this i've come to the realization that most religons were born of fear, or specifically as
an explanation for the unexplained, primarily death. I used to believe that humankind's biggest fear was death.

I've recently changed my mind though. The more I see BG defend and attempt to incite people with illogical
rantings trying to defend his nonsense i've decided that humankinds biggest fear is reality.

People spend most of their existence deluding themselves or trying to distract themselves from reality.

Which you should have done, because then you would have been a Zen Buddhist, which is pretty wise.

Of course, I would then berate you constantly for being a fucking Buddhist.

Fucking buddhist.

I understand what you're saying here, but that isn't what I was responding to. Also, Murder was wrong in the Bible from about the 2nd chapter when Cain killed Abel... and then a few chapters later in Exodus when it was part of the 10 commandments.



I disagree on this.



The ACLU, every website link that Crow posts, the site that VB loves, democrats, etc etc. democrats was a joke.

Really?




Are you saying Christianity and Judaism are morally equivalent and differ only theologically?

Certainly this sort of thinking is in the Jewish oral tradition, but I wouldn't expect you to hold this position.

killing a fellow family or tribe member for no reason was considered wrong, but otherwise there were radically different standards of moral justification
for killing humans than exists today.



followed closely by justified stoning of adulterers, killing children for blasphemy, mass genocide etc.

obama is a secret atheist! impeach!

I almost continued on about arguing with empty space, but I'm intimidated by the impressive knowledge of buddhism that some of yous guys seem to possess...s.

The evolution of this thread:

Me: You claim morality evolved, I say it didn't

Others: What about animals, they show signs of morality

Me: Yea, but animals having morality doesn't prove it evolved

Others: Yea, but since it exist, it must have evolved, since we already know that everything else in the entire existance of the universe evolved.

Me: That would be a false arguing technique, called Arguing from Authority

Crow: It's true, everyone knows it, it's not arguing from authority ( this was my favorite part )

Me: Still doesn't give you any basis to make the claim that morality evolved

Others: you don't understand evolution

Me: Doesn't matter, even though I do, you made the claim morality evolved

Others: Oh yea, well you don't even know what morality is.

Me: Morality is an outside benchmark for judging the merits of action

Others: NO!, morality is the collection of rules for right and wrong that people have figured out would be best for them.

Me: So you really believe that morality is the general consensus of a group of people?

Others: NO!, morality is an esoteric thought with no real substance or definition and absolutely no absolutes

Me: Okay..so then why would you want to make the statement that morality evolved if it's existance is an illusionary, generic, subjective guide with floating value sets?

Others: You don't understand anything.

Me: I guess not.

you: morality can only have come from god.

us: god isn't necessary to explain moral behavior because it could have evolved, and here's evidence to support that

you: *WARNING WARNING: in over my head with this subject. commencing operation "spend-25-pages-misrepresenting-everything-the-other-side-says" to create smoke screen to hide behind*

evidence = subjective explanation of morality?

A loaded argument isn't a winning arguement..it's a dodge

It went down more like this:

BG: Morality was given to us by God. You say it could have evolved, but morality is contrary to evolution.

Others: Since morality conveys an advantage to its bearers, it is therefore consistent with evolution. Further evidence for this is that other animals who live in complex social groups, including those to whom we are genetically related, show the beginnings of morality.

BG: But morality is contrary to evolution.

Others: Evolution is a process by which beneficial traits proliferate. Since morality is a beneficial trait, its proliferation is consistent with evolution.

BG: But morality is contrary to evolution.

Others: You keep saying that without explaining why you think that.

BG: But morality is contrary to evolution.

Others. We have explained why that isn't true. This explanation is accepted by all of the world's biologists and ecologists.

BG: But morality is contrary to evolution and Dawkins's first name is Dick!

--

P.S. I think the beginning of this thread was better where we were discussing whether or not there could be an objective standard for morality without religion. Then it devolved into the above.

I can see how this perspective could be the one someone sees.

And I like it

But here is another view of the same story:

Me: You claim morality evolved because in your opinion things evolved and this is consistant with things evolving. And they evolved for the reason that the best changes are the ones that survive..which is a subset of survival of the fittest. I hold that survival of the fittest is contrary to what we think of as morality.

You: No it isn't, because things evolve that help us get better, and things that don't help us are left behind in the dung heap of evolutionary refuge.

Me: Right, and things that survive, survive because of the survival of the fittest mode of evolution, which I don't hold is complimentary to the idea of morality.

You: But all you keep saying is that it is 'contrary to evolution'.

Me: That's right, because you are 'just claiming' that it is consistant with evolution. Why should my explanation have greater detail than yours?

You: Because there are more of us making random claims to knowing what morality is, even though we are really just saying that morality isn't something we can make a definitive answer for because we haven't really thought much of it.

you're still doing it. just stop already.

See, you are fully convinced that you have won the argument, that your argument is flawless and complete, and that anyone who thinks differently is misdirecting. You live in the world of argument to the authortiy, make exagerated claims to the value of your explanations, and insist on pretending that you have won and I am just being difficult.

This is why your quest for world destruction of religion is isolated to minority status and in the end will fizzle out for the next fad de jour of the rebelious youth claiming to have reinvented the wheel.

honestly can't tell if you are actually serious or just pulling strings. i doubt you are able to tell the difference yourself at this point.

OH really? I thought it was something God gave us at creation, not an outside subjective benchmark.

Well, it seems you are making my point. Humankind's biggest fear is reality so you are probably right. Zealots will probably win and kill the smart people.

oh

If I understand you correctly, you're judging the process of evolution as immoral. That is, you're treating survival of the fittest as a philosophy.

In your view, a person who believes evolution occurred and also judges the existence of the advanced race of humans as Good would be compelled by his principles to practice Survival of the Fittest (i.e., eugenics, as Kramit pointed out on page 1) for the betterment of the species. He should throw the defective babies over the cliff like the Spartans of lore.

To the rest of us, survival of the fittest (lowercase) is a predictive and descriptive theory of biology, not a philosophy. People don't consult The Origin of Species to learn how to behave.

The same way a belief in gravity doesn't stop us from throwing a ball into the air or erecting buildings, a belief in evolution doesn't stop us from caring for sick babies.

Gee, I hope no one was arguing that bolded part, its just plain old wrong. One can evolve and still have thing that don't help out on survival of the species per say. I don't think the positioning of the windpipe and esophagus is that much of help to humans on the overall scale, but it hasn't threatened our extintion (at least not yet).

You are right, but I am not talking about the current stage of our evolution where we have decided that darwinian evolution is passe and that now we do what we do because we do it. Over and over again there is a convenient overlooking of what stage of evolution that morality is in when I say it is not comfrotable with evolution.

Go back to pre morality, which is a condition that existed in order for crow and Hitchens to make the statement that 'morality evolved',. So back in the day when morality hadn't evolved, when there were no right or wrongs, when pre-morality man walked with a purposeful gait and looked down on the weak...that would be the time when morality and darwinian evolution would be at odds with each other.

Of course it's real convinient to see how morality evolved if you use morality to justify an action.

Sounds like you read the scopes trail transcript where they argued that the human species has 180 vestigial organs...



That was one of the many scientific facts used to teach evolution in schools.

there never was a time when homo sapiens or their predecessors didn't function in social units. there never was a time when basic empathetic behavior within the family/tribe
wouldn't have been beneficial for individuals. obviously empathetic behavior predates humans, and probably pre-dates all of our most recent ancestors. mammals have been
behaving socially for tens of millions of years. animals have presumably been behaving in a self-sacraficing manner to ensure the survival of their young for hundreds of millions.

those beneficial behaviors have been gradually morphing and expanding to transcend tribalism in humans as our social structures and interactions have become more complex, but
there never would have truly been a time of "pre morality" in the sense you keep harping on for humans. "back in the day" would have been way, way before us, and morlaity would have
gradually evolved in step with the evolution of social structures themselves.

everything you've said in this thread is based on false premises stemming from ignorance about evolution. that has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep repreating
the same nonsensical statements over and over. obviously you're not really trying to convince anyone that you're right except yourself.

I didn't realize that we had such detailed records of the social structure of prehistoric man. Complex understanding of the social makeup of all examples of mankinds evolutions must have been dug up recently, because I'm pretty sure that so far all we have is some teeth, two femurs and a cave drawing with a mastodon.

Did this happen over the weekend?

I know I keep pointing out over and over that you are making statements with no facts and incredible amounts of poetic license, but you don't seem to be able to stop.

I guess basing your worldview on a mostly faith based belief system causes this?

Are you just dense? Why don't you say, "back in the day before circles evolved, or squares evolved." You are just twising semantics as usual.



Yep, Sunday at 5:38PM . You must have missed it.

there is plenty of evidence for tribalism in prehistoric homo sapiens, but that wasn't even the point. the point is you don't understand evolution even as a theory, and
your arguments that morality is contrary to evolution are based in grossly oversimplified mischaraterization of evolution and are nonsensical.

if you at some point want to attempt to understand evolution at least *as a theory*, we might be able to start to have meaningful debate about evidence, but until you do that everything
you say is just mentally whacking off.