How do you see our collective moral and ethical cup? Half full or overflowing with goodness?

[ding]

Indeed.

I would say in spite of the vile mainstream homophobic and misogynous religions that are slowing the progress of our collective moral sense.

If you see the Gods on offer as being as vile as I do, especially the genocidal one, Yahweh/Allah, then please see it as your duty to try to reduce their vile influence.

I spoke a little on this just above.

Regards
DL

Your moral indignation was built upon those religions.

Your sense of right and wrong, however misguided, is proof that absolute morals exist.

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

Sounds like moral relativism to me.

Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes he didn’t violate it. This has been known for at least 6000 years.

 

[ding]

We are hardwired for morality. So says science.

 

[GreatestIam]

universal truth.

No such thing exists save that life knows it exists. Even that is in past an assumption but that is where the smart money is.

Your too much of a goof to know it.

I did note that you had no argument to offer on the word (truth), standing alone is meaningless.

You also forgot to provide even one objective moral truth. No truth from the goof.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

universal truth.

No such thing exists save that life knows it exists. Even that is in past an assumption but that is where the smart money is.

Your too much of a goof to know it.

I did note that you had no argument to offer on the word (truth), standing alone is meaningless.

You also forgot to provide even one objective moral truth. No truth from the goof.

Regards
DL

Wrong. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[GreatestIam]

Indeed.

I would say in spite of the vile mainstream homophobic and misogynous religions that are slowing the progress of our collective moral sense.

If you see the Gods on offer as being as vile as I do, especially the genocidal one, Yahweh/Allah, then please see it as your duty to try to reduce their vile influence.

I spoke a little on this just above.

Regards
DL

Your moral indignation was built upon those religions.

Your sense of right and wrong, however misguided, is proof that absolute morals exist.

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

universal truth.

No such thing exists save that life knows it exists. Even that is in past an assumption but that is where the smart money is.

Your too much of a goof to know it.

I did note that you had no argument to offer on the word (truth), standing alone is meaningless.

You also forgot to provide even one objective moral truth. No truth from the goof.

Regards
DL

Wrong. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

We do not even know what matter and energy are yet.

The rest looked TLDR.

You have not earned that much of my time with your foolish thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Your moral indignation was built upon those religions.

Your sense of right and wrong, however misguided, is proof that absolute morals exist.

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

If you don't argue against what I wrote then you must agree with, "if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong." Right?

And if you agree with what I wrote, then I have already addressed this point as it does explain why we do not behave morally all of the time.

 

[GreatestIam]

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

If you don't argue against what I wrote then you must agree with, "if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong." Right?

And if you agree with what I wrote, then I have already addressed this point as it does explain why we do not behave morally all of the time.

Go get the minute stat of deviance and apply the 80 20 rule and you will see that deviance is almost non-existent.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

If you don't argue against what I wrote then you must agree with, "if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong." Right?

And if you agree with what I wrote, then I have already addressed this point as it does explain why we do not behave morally all of the time.

Go get the minute stat of deviance and apply the 80 20 rule and you will see that deviance is almost non-existent.

Regards
DL

Wrong again. This can be solved through inspection.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

^ also something you didn't disagree with.

 

[ding]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

And yet moral laws exist independent of man.

 

[Hollie]

Your moral indignation was built upon those religions.

Your sense of right and wrong, however misguided, is proof that absolute morals exist.

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

I’ve come away from these threads with the clear impression that the angriest thumpers are the last people on the planet to be lecturing anyone on morals. The thumpers tend to use their religion like a bloody truncheon as a weapon to attack the non-believers.

Hey, it's thumpers who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's thumpers who claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

OR

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many thumpers, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is fundamentalist christians)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by thumpers to be the result of the inerrancy of Christian dogma (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive and want to use their religion to denigrate those who don't believe as they do. And this is all good? I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

 

[ding]

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

I’ve come away from these threads with the clear impression that the angriest thumpers are the last people on the planet to be lecturing anyone on morals. The thumpers tend to use their religion like a bloody truncheon as a weapon to attack the non-believers.

Hey, it's thumpers who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's thumpers who claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

OR

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many thumpers, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is fundamentalist christians)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by thumpers to be the result of the inerrancy of Christian dogma (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive and want to use their religion to denigrate those who don't believe as they do. And this is all good? I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

I'm not lecturing anyone on morals. I couldn't care less to convince you. I am correcting the errors that people like you - who act like Nazis - make.

 

[ding]

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

I’ve come away from these threads with the clear impression that the angriest thumpers are the last people on the planet to be lecturing anyone on morals. The thumpers tend to use their religion like a bloody truncheon as a weapon to attack the non-believers.

Hey, it's thumpers who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's thumpers who claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

OR

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many thumpers, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is fundamentalist christians)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by thumpers to be the result of the inerrancy of Christian dogma (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive and want to use their religion to denigrate those who don't believe as they do. And this is all good? I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Man did not invent the morals of virtue. Man discovered the morals of virtue.

 

[GreatestIam]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

And yet moral laws exist independent of man.

If animals could talk, they would agree. We do not know how close to our reasoning capabilities what we call the lower animals have.

Telepathy will likely tell us the answer to that in 20 years or so.

Regards
DL

 

[Hollie]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

And yet moral laws exist independent of man.

If animals could talk, they would agree. We do not know how close to our reasoning capabilities what we call the lower animals have.

Telepathy will likely tell us the answer to that in 20 years or so.

Regards
DL

I'm afraid that will only encourage those thumpers who hear "the voices".

 

[GreatestIam]

Name the moral tenets that you think are absolute or objective so that I might know what you are talking about. Listen to this clip first.



Regards
DL

It doesn’t work that way. Standards exist for reasons. When they are violated the reasons make themselves known. It’s probabilistic in nature. Moral laws are not like physical laws.

IOW, you were talking out of your ass and cannot back up your claim.

Your garbage way to post is why I laughed so hard when you wanted to do a one on one.

You would have lasted 2 maybe 3 posts before I would have had to write you off.

What a waste of a mind.

Regards
DL

I do think it can be difficult for people from organized religions to understand concepts of morality / success of the species when many organized religions have been the worst examples of morality and survival of the species.

I think there are two issues to address: survival and morality. There is a huge difference in "surviving" and behaving morally and ethically. There would obviously be things that we would "learn" from a living in a society with a successful survival instinct, such as:

1) Inbreeding would weaken the species;

2) Children must be protected from predators, be taught to feed themselves, work and survive;

3) Killing the king of the village would likely result in weakening the ability of the village to survive.

But these evolutionary imperatives also speak to something more than just survival. They speak to cooperation and advancing the society.

No argument against this.

Unfortunately, in the Abrahamic cults we are cursed with, the natural law does not apply. It says that the offspring should outlive the parent yet Christians and Muslims adore a God who has his child murdered instead of doing the manly thing and stepping up himself.

They call their demonstrably evil God, good. No guff. Theists are mentally deficient in terms of a moral sense.

Theists have gone from a single moral standard moral, the best moral position, and have settled for calling evil good, to a double moral standard were they forgive God the most heinous crimes and sins and still give that unholy satanic God adoration. That is crazy.

Regards
DL

I’ve come away from these threads with the clear impression that the angriest thumpers are the last people on the planet to be lecturing anyone on morals. The thumpers tend to use their religion like a bloody truncheon as a weapon to attack the non-believers.

Hey, it's thumpers who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's thumpers who claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

OR

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many thumpers, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is fundamentalist christians)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by thumpers to be the result of the inerrancy of Christian dogma (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive and want to use their religion to denigrate those who don't believe as they do. And this is all good? I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

No argument buddy.

A religion is a tribe, first and foremost. Tribes are groups of insecure people, as we all are, but need they seek fellowship and the protection of numbers to be comfortable. Theists want to be associated with power and thus sell their souls to some tribe.

Pathetic for the sheeple but that allows sheep dogs like Gnostic Christians to harry them and find the more astute thinkers, like you.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

And yet moral laws exist independent of man.

If animals could talk, they would agree. We do not know how close to our reasoning capabilities what we call the lower animals have.

Telepathy will likely tell us the answer to that in 20 years or so.

Regards
DL

I'm afraid that will only encourage those thumpers who hear "the voices".

They may never use their inner listening capability but it does not matter at their point in time due to people like you and I nipping at their heels.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Morals are effectively standards.

That should not be set by a genocidal satanic God.

You are the last one that I would even attempt to discus the satanic Christian moral views with. You call evil good.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome

Our selfish gene is always on and thus we always seek the best end. Our cooperation bias never shuts down.

Regards
DL

And yet moral laws exist independent of man.

If animals could talk, they would agree. We do not know how close to our reasoning capabilities what we call the lower animals have.

Telepathy will likely tell us the answer to that in 20 years or so.

Regards
DL

Don't forget the plants. Intelligence is a part of life as life is a part of matter and energy. How can it not be? It all came from intelligence to begin with.