Darwin, the Destroyer

[ilia25]

One man's morality is another man's inconvenient truth. The whole point is that morality, like beauty, is subjective and remains in the eye of the beholder.

That is not entirely true. People often differ on details, but fundamentally all people share the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Most people who behave badly understand that they are breaking the rules (those who don't are mentally ill).

The point I make is that morality is subjective.

I understand, but I it is not true, at least not when it is generalized like that. There is basic understanding of right and wrong that is shared by all people. I'm not sure if you can call it subjective, because it is the same for all people (excluding mentally ill).

Murder is always wrong and immoral -- you can only rationalize it as a lesser evil. But evil nonetheless.

Do you reckon that homosexual lovers might find their feelings for each other moral, while being taken aback by those who disagree?

Like I said, people can differ on details. Morality comes from reasoning, and some issues are complex and people come to different conclusions.

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.

how many of you have rationalized something declared 'immoral' in one of the dusty, ancient story books by telling yourself that God understands, or the times are different now than when the story was written?

Some complex issues take a lot of experience to understand. Humanity learns on its mistakes, that is why something that was not acceptable in ancient times is acceptable now, and vice versa. But the same true for many other things, like science or medicine.

Our understanding of the world around us evolves with time, but it is not the same as saying that different people see different worlds. We all see the same skies above, the same stars, rivers and mountains, cars on the streets and so on. Same with morals -- on the basic level they are the same.

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And how that worked out? The rise of Christianity had not stopped immoral behavior -- worse, many people used religion as an excuse for their crimes.

It all comes back to the reasoning -- and if a person does not get the morals based on common sense, religion would not help him either.



And the notion of God and heavens does? A bad person would ignore God given morals just as well.



People can punish too! That why reasoning works for most people -- they know that behaving bad will make them suffer in this world.

"The rise of Christianity...."???
It is the rise of the Enlightenment and commensurate decline of religion over roughly the last three centuries that explains much of the wars and mayhem of the last centuries.

And what explains the wars and mayhem before the Enlightenment? More people died in the last century because of better technology -- not because a decline in morals. If anything, people behaved much better recently than in the dark ages.



Morality is deducted by reasoning.



Not true, the credit belong to the people.



That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

Only because they make sense -- "Don't do upon others..."

2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia

That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in God or read the Bible to understand the Golden Rule. They put it into Bible (if they did) because it was around long before the Bible was written.

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

That would be the Old Testament. Some 3600 years ago.

In 528 Tribonian was selected, with John the Cappodocian, to prepare the new imperial legal code, the Codex Juris Civilis, or the Code of Justinian.. Rome had a legal system dating back to the ‘Twelve Tables,’ written in 451 BCE, based on the 6th century BCE work of Solon of Athens. Rome, unlike Greece, treated the interpretation of law (statutes and precedents) as a profession. In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated.


Seems you're only off by a 1000 years.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

I think he was trying to say that people throughout history have frequently been coerced toward good/evil deeds. I could be wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The absolute freedom that humans have is unfortunately misunderstood.

We are only free in relation to being one with all.

A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me one with everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for his change. The vendor says, "change comes from within".

 

[there4eyeM]

The absolute freedom that humans have is unfortunately misunderstood.

We are only free in relation to being one with all.

A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me one with everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for his change. The vendor says, "change comes from within".

Are you really sure? I heard it was a pizza shop.

 

[ilia25]

"The rise of Christianity...."???
It is the rise of the Enlightenment and commensurate decline of religion over roughly the last three centuries that explains much of the wars and mayhem of the last centuries.

And what explains the wars and mayhem before the Enlightenment? More people died in the last century because of better technology -- not because a decline in morals. If anything, people behaved much better recently than in the dark ages.



Morality is deducted by reasoning.



Not true, the credit belong to the people.



That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity.



Only because they make sense -- "Don't do upon others..."

2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia

That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in God or read the Bible to understand the Golden Rule. They put it into Bible (if they did) because it was around long before the Bible was written.

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

 

[there4eyeM]

And what explains the wars and mayhem before the Enlightenment? More people died in the last century because of better technology -- not because a decline in morals. If anything, people behaved much better recently than in the dark ages.



Morality is deducted by reasoning.



Not true, the credit belong to the people.



That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity.



Only because they make sense -- "Don't do upon others..."



That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in God or read the Bible to understand the Golden Rule. They put it into Bible (if they did) because it was around long before the Bible was written.

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

Bad, or anti-social?

 

[ilia25]

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

I think he was trying to say that people throughout history have frequently been coerced toward good/evil deeds. I could be wrong.

Yes. But that is an important distinction -- between:
a) doing evil things and
b) lacking the understanding that what you are doing is evil

 

[ilia25]

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

Bad, or anti-social?

Same thing. If you live in a society, it will punish you for anti-social behavior -- which will be bad for you.

People act morally for their own good -- and they don't need the Bible to know that those things are related.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

Bad, or anti-social?

Same thing. If you live in a society, it will punish you for anti-social behavior -- which will be bad for you.

People act morally for their own good -- and they don't need the Bible to know that those things are related.

My issue with this post is not that moral behavior exists independent of the Bible, but the assertion that antisocial behavior is synonymous with "bad." That's an odd bit of logic. So, when Rosa Parks sat in the "White Only" section of the bus, was she bad?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

6. So, which came first,….folks behaving like animals, or creed that instructed them to behave as such? “Obviously, Darwinian evolution is not just a scientific theory. It has worldview implications that percolate from classic literature down to Hollywood and into our living rooms.”
Nancy Pearcey, “Saving Leonardo,” p. 145.

Folks are animals. Animal instincts?

There is no creed there, only people clowning around and a pseudo-intellect seeing more there, than there is there.

What people do with distorted or correct views of Darwinian evolution, that is outside the scientific sphere, is what it is by it's very nature -- unscientific.

Crazy Christian messages come out of Hollywood and into our living rooms -- with our consent. To shut it would be to shut out society and the culture. Maybe some people are unhappy with out society and culture changing, but what is new about that concept? It's always been that way ...

[youtube]O0S5SuAwIXs[/youtube]

 

[PoliticalChic]

And what explains the wars and mayhem before the Enlightenment? More people died in the last century because of better technology -- not because a decline in morals. If anything, people behaved much better recently than in the dark ages.



Morality is deducted by reasoning.



Not true, the credit belong to the people.



That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity.



Only because they make sense -- "Don't do upon others..."



That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in God or read the Bible to understand the Golden Rule. They put it into Bible (if they did) because it was around long before the Bible was written.

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

You are as dumb as a box of hair.

First, research the meaning of 'bce'....


...then re-read post #142.


Ahh!....now I recall! The '25' is your IQ!

At least Rainman was good at math.

 

[ilia25]

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

You are as dumb as a box of hair.

You have lost the argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

You are as dumb as a box of hair.

First, research the meaning of 'bce'....


...then re-read post #142.


Ahh!....now I recall! The '25' is your IQ!

At least Rainman was good at math.

Obama beats the shit out of your side and you hide out here and can't keep a thread on topic as the OP?

go lay an egg in the Flame Zone

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And what explains the wars and mayhem before the Enlightenment? More people died in the last century because of better technology -- not because a decline in morals. If anything, people behaved much better recently than in the dark ages.



Morality is deducted by reasoning.



Not true, the credit belong to the people.



That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity.



Only because they make sense -- "Don't do upon others..."



That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in God or read the Bible to understand the Golden Rule. They put it into Bible (if they did) because it was around long before the Bible was written.

"That is a false statement. Rome had developed pretty advanced judicial codes long before the rise of Christianity."


The reference was to the Bible.

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

laws predate the Bible? Who knew? Has anyone told Jesus about this?

 

[ilia25]

Bad, or anti-social?

Same thing. If you live in a society, it will punish you for anti-social behavior -- which will be bad for you.

People act morally for their own good -- and they don't need the Bible to know that those things are related.

My issue with this post is not that moral behavior exists independent of the Bible, but the assertion that antisocial behavior is synonymous with "bad." That's an odd bit of logic. So, when Rosa Parks sat in the "White Only" section of the bus, was she bad?

Well, do you think Rosa Parks was anti-social? Because I don't

 

[AVG-JOE]

That is not entirely true. People often differ on details, but fundamentally all people share the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Most people who behave badly understand that they are breaking the rules (those who don't are mentally ill).

The point I make is that morality is subjective.

I understand, but I it is not true, at least not when it is generalized like that. There is basic understanding of right and wrong that is shared by all people. I'm not sure if you can call it subjective, because it is the same for all people (excluding mentally ill).

Murder is always wrong and immoral -- you can only rationalize it as a lesser evil. But evil nonetheless.



Like I said, people can differ on details. Morality comes from reasoning, and some issues are complex and people come to different conclusions.

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.

how many of you have rationalized something declared 'immoral' in one of the dusty, ancient story books by telling yourself that God understands, or the times are different now than when the story was written?

Some complex issues take a lot of experience to understand. Humanity learns on its mistakes, that is why something that was not acceptable in ancient times is acceptable now, and vice versa. But the same true for many other things, like science or medicine.

Our understanding of the world around us evolves with time, but it is not the same as saying that different people see different worlds. We all see the same skies above, the same stars, rivers and mountains, cars on the streets and so on. Same with morals -- on the basic level they are the same.

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

That's the point. It's NOT the same for all people. Everyone gets to decide absolutely, and in the privacy of their own minds what is and what is not moral, and 'legal' has little to do with it.

If you decide that gambling is moral, it is for you. If you decide that queer sex is immoral, it is. Simple as that.

The next stage of the morality discussion is the morality of tolerance. If the gay-boys down the street aren't hurting anyone, and they're minding their own business, do we have a moral obligation as a community to defend their collective right to be wrong? There are a LOT of self righteous types who believe that they have a moral obligation to harass the gay-boys down the street and 'straighten them out'.

No one has the high moral ground. Morality in a society that is truly free is a perfectly level playing field, carefully balanced on the podium of the Civil Laws that, by necessity in a religiously pluralistic community, MUST supersede religious code.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And it was false -- the legal systems of the West have their roots in pagan Rome, not in the Bible. And I assure you, Romans knew well that murder or theft is bad before they ever heard of the Bible.

laws predate the Bible? Who knew? Has anyone told Jesus about this?

Of course many laws predate the Bible. Morals predate the Bible.

And the Roman legal system was created by pagans who never heard of the Bible -- that is why it is irrelevant to the Roman laws as well.

You mean to say many Christians today conveniently skip over the fact it was rabid conservative Christians who gave history the Dark Ages?

It is with a pun that I say thank god for the enlightenment

 

[ilia25]

laws predate the Bible? Who knew? Has anyone told Jesus about this?

Of course many laws predate the Bible. Morals predate the Bible.

And the Roman legal system was created by pagans who never heard of the Bible -- that is why it is irrelevant to the Roman laws as well.

You mean to say many Christians today conveniently skip over the fact it was rabid conservative Christians who gave history the Dark Ages?

It is with a pun that I say thank god for the enlightenment

Sorry, i did not get the irony

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The point I make is that morality is subjective.

I understand, but I it is not true, at least not when it is generalized like that. There is basic understanding of right and wrong that is shared by all people. I'm not sure if you can call it subjective, because it is the same for all people (excluding mentally ill).

Murder is always wrong and immoral -- you can only rationalize it as a lesser evil. But evil nonetheless.



Like I said, people can differ on details. Morality comes from reasoning, and some issues are complex and people come to different conclusions.

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.



Some complex issues take a lot of experience to understand. Humanity learns on its mistakes, that is why something that was not acceptable in ancient times is acceptable now, and vice versa. But the same true for many other things, like science or medicine.

Our understanding of the world around us evolves with time, but it is not the same as saying that different people see different worlds. We all see the same skies above, the same stars, rivers and mountains, cars on the streets and so on. Same with morals -- on the basic level they are the same.

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

That's the point. It's NOT the same for all people. Everyone gets to decide absolutely, and in the privacy of their own minds what is and what is not moral, and 'legal' has little to do with it.

If you decide that gambling is moral, it is for you. If you decide that queer sex is immoral, it is. Simple as that.

The next stage of the morality discussion is the morality of tolerance. If the gay-boys down the street aren't hurting anyone, and they're minding their own business, do we have a moral obligation as a community to defend their collective right to be wrong? There are a LOT of self righteous types who believe that they have a moral obligation to harass the gay-boys down the street and 'straighten them out'.

No one has the high moral ground. Morality in a society that is truly free is a perfectly level playing field, carefully balanced on the podium of the Civil Laws that, by necessity in a religiously pluralistic community, MUST supersede religious code.

very good...