Things about atheism that should be self-evident.

[BreezeWood]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

 

[Czernobog]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

Haha...dude....don't try to understand it.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

 

[Czernobog]

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.


you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.


no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.



So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

You can expect:

"The template codes for all of those things..."

You can't argue with Breezewood. He can account for anything. The holistic ideas he likes START as "These universal truths I possess affect all things at all times.", and then they go from there. It's magical thinking. Leaf in the wind? See! Told ya!

A caterpillar emerges from a cocoon as a butterfly? See! Told ya!

Humans die by the scores in a preventable epidemic? See! Told ya!

Kanye West hits number one again? See! Told ya! Hitler? See!.... it really does not matter. The entire philosophy is like playing those old "Mad Lib" games. You can literally insert anything you like, and read it as true. What a luxury! Of course, the whole mess provides no useful predictions of any kind, it explains absolutely nothing, it means 3 billion different things to 3 billion different people, and it demands (yes, DEMANDS) suspension of rational thought to understand it.

Sorry people... "zen" is a scam. Zen is a feeling. You are not realizing any universal truths. You are altering your own mental state. Period. You have discovered no more "truth" than the dreadlocked hippie who just had a spiritual experience before passing out from his nitrous balloon.

 

[Correll]

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".

Of course it is. "Don't be Cruel" is just where it starts.


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foun

dations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

And I would agree with three of those foundations.

Respect Authority. Why? And unconditionally? Unconditional surrender to authority is how the Gas chambers happened. It's how My Lai happened. The justification was "I was just following orders". They were submitting to, and respecting authority. I would submit that authority must constantly be questioned, challenged, and tested. "Does this authority deserve my respect, and submission?"

Sanctity/Purity? Please! I would submit that purity can be a good thing in moderation. Guess what? There are times I enjoy disgusting foods. Have you ever seen how a hot dog is made? Junk food is actually fun, and tasty. As far as actions who gets to be the arbiter of what actions are "impure", or "profane". And, profane to whom?

You see, your five foundations imply the Kantian view that there are moral absolutes. Says who, and who decides what those absolutes are, and by what authority? I subscribe, rather, to moral universalism. R. W. Hepburn once said, "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." In other words, universal concepts can be tested, and objectively determined to be beneficial, or harmful. Theft is harmful. It is demonstrably so. Me stealing your shit harms you. What about homosexuality? Does my getting fucked in the ass by Frank, hurt you? No. Thus "homosexuality is wrong" is not a universal moral principle.

A group that follows a moral code that doesn't allow for respecting a legitimate authority is a group that A won't get much shit done and B, will be out competed by, if not directly defeated by groups that do.


And yes, purity. A hot dog? SUre. If you are anti- pure enough to make that your a staple of your diet, do you doubt that harm follows?

 

[Czernobog]

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".

Of course it is. "Don't be Cruel" is just where it starts.


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foun

dations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

And I would agree with three of those foundations.

Respect Authority. Why? And unconditionally? Unconditional surrender to authority is how the Gas chambers happened. It's how My Lai happened. The justification was "I was just following orders". They were submitting to, and respecting authority. I would submit that authority must constantly be questioned, challenged, and tested. "Does this authority deserve my respect, and submission?"

Sanctity/Purity? Please! I would submit that purity can be a good thing in moderation. Guess what? There are times I enjoy disgusting foods. Have you ever seen how a hot dog is made? Junk food is actually fun, and tasty. As far as actions who gets to be the arbiter of what actions are "impure", or "profane". And, profane to whom?

You see, your five foundations imply the Kantian view that there are moral absolutes. Says who, and who decides what those absolutes are, and by what authority? I subscribe, rather, to moral universalism. R. W. Hepburn once said, "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." In other words, universal concepts can be tested, and objectively determined to be beneficial, or harmful. Theft is harmful. It is demonstrably so. Me stealing your shit harms you. What about homosexuality? Does my getting fucked in the ass by Frank, hurt you? No. Thus "homosexuality is wrong" is not a universal moral principle.

A group that follows a moral code that doesn't allow for respecting a legitimate authority is a group that A won't get much shit done and B, will be out competed by, if not directly defeated by groups that do.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. You see, whenever I hear someone shouting about "respecting authority", what I usually hear is " absolute obedience". I have a problem with absolute obedience. I have a problem with authoritarianism. I do not know of a single time in history where authoritarianism ever resulted in a morally positive outcome. Now, if this was not your intent, then I apologise. I respect authority so long as that authority acts in the interest of the people over whom they have authority. See, this is part of the problem, in my opinion, that we are having with police today. They have gone unchecked for so long, that they are convinced that, just because they have a badge, it is the responsibility of citizens to do whatever they say. It's not. And we need to find a way back to where the police deserve the authority that we give them.

And yes, purity. A hot dog? SUre. If you are anti- pure enough to make that your a staple of your diet, do you doubt that harm follows?

Again, I think we are having a problem with semantics. purity has cone to have a religious undertone. I would agree that one should eat healthy. See, I try to avoid religious code words in my morality.

 

[Correll]

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".

Of course it is. "Don't be Cruel" is just where it starts.


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foun

dations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

And I would agree with three of those foundations.

Respect Authority. Why? And unconditionally? Unconditional surrender to authority is how the Gas chambers happened. It's how My Lai happened. The justification was "I was just following orders". They were submitting to, and respecting authority. I would submit that authority must constantly be questioned, challenged, and tested. "Does this authority deserve my respect, and submission?"

Sanctity/Purity? Please! I would submit that purity can be a good thing in moderation. Guess what? There are times I enjoy disgusting foods. Have you ever seen how a hot dog is made? Junk food is actually fun, and tasty. As far as actions who gets to be the arbiter of what actions are "impure", or "profane". And, profane to whom?

You see, your five foundations imply the Kantian view that there are moral absolutes. Says who, and who decides what those absolutes are, and by what authority? I subscribe, rather, to moral universalism. R. W. Hepburn once said, "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." In other words, universal concepts can be tested, and objectively determined to be beneficial, or harmful. Theft is harmful. It is demonstrably so. Me stealing your shit harms you. What about homosexuality? Does my getting fucked in the ass by Frank, hurt you? No. Thus "homosexuality is wrong" is not a universal moral principle.

A group that follows a moral code that doesn't allow for respecting a legitimate authority is a group that A won't get much shit done and B, will be out competed by, if not directly defeated by groups that do.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. You see, whenever I hear someone shouting about "respecting authority", what I usually hear is " absolute obedience". I have a problem with absolute obedience. I have a problem with authoritarianism. I do not know of a single time in history where authoritarianism ever resulted in a morally positive outcome. Now, if this was not your intent, then I apologise. I respect authority so long as that authority acts in the interest of the people over whom they have authority. See, this is part of the problem, in my opinion, that we are having with police today. They have gone unchecked for so long, that they are convinced that, just because they have a badge, it is the responsibility of citizens to do whatever they say. It's not. And we need to find a way back to where the police deserve the authority that we give them.

And yes, purity. A hot dog? SUre. If you are anti- pure enough to make that your a staple of your diet, do you doubt that harm follows?

Again, I think we are having a problem with semantics. purity has cone to have a religious undertone. I would agree that one should eat healthy. See, I try to avoid religious code words in my morality.

1. When I hear someone assume an extreme like "absolute obedience" I hear is that they want to tear down traditional authority and replace it with one they like, generally far more tyrannical.


2. The religious rationalization comes FROM the moral of purity. "Code" is a code word that has a lot of hidden and contradictory meanings itself. The vast amount of moral thought in history has been intertwined with religion and religious thought.

When you think purity, you don't think hotdogs, what do you really think of?

 

[Czernobog]

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".

Of course it is. "Don't be Cruel" is just where it starts.


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foun

dations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

And I would agree with three of those foundations.

Respect Authority. Why? And unconditionally? Unconditional surrender to authority is how the Gas chambers happened. It's how My Lai happened. The justification was "I was just following orders". They were submitting to, and respecting authority. I would submit that authority must constantly be questioned, challenged, and tested. "Does this authority deserve my respect, and submission?"

Sanctity/Purity? Please! I would submit that purity can be a good thing in moderation. Guess what? There are times I enjoy disgusting foods. Have you ever seen how a hot dog is made? Junk food is actually fun, and tasty. As far as actions who gets to be the arbiter of what actions are "impure", or "profane". And, profane to whom?

You see, your five foundations imply the Kantian view that there are moral absolutes. Says who, and who decides what those absolutes are, and by what authority? I subscribe, rather, to moral universalism. R. W. Hepburn once said, "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." In other words, universal concepts can be tested, and objectively determined to be beneficial, or harmful. Theft is harmful. It is demonstrably so. Me stealing your shit harms you. What about homosexuality? Does my getting fucked in the ass by Frank, hurt you? No. Thus "homosexuality is wrong" is not a universal moral principle.

A group that follows a moral code that doesn't allow for respecting a legitimate authority is a group that A won't get much shit done and B, will be out competed by, if not directly defeated by groups that do.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. You see, whenever I hear someone shouting about "respecting authority", what I usually hear is " absolute obedience". I have a problem with absolute obedience. I have a problem with authoritarianism. I do not know of a single time in history where authoritarianism ever resulted in a morally positive outcome. Now, if this was not your intent, then I apologise. I respect authority so long as that authority acts in the interest of the people over whom they have authority. See, this is part of the problem, in my opinion, that we are having with police today. They have gone unchecked for so long, that they are convinced that, just because they have a badge, it is the responsibility of citizens to do whatever they say. It's not. And we need to find a way back to where the police deserve the authority that we give them.

And yes, purity. A hot dog? SUre. If you are anti- pure enough to make that your a staple of your diet, do you doubt that harm follows?

Again, I think we are having a problem with semantics. purity has cone to have a religious undertone. I would agree that one should eat healthy. See, I try to avoid religious code words in my morality.

1. When I hear someone assume an extreme like "absolute obedience" I hear is that they want to tear down traditional authority and replace it with one they like, generally far more tyrannical.

Well, you read my position on authority. I don't wanna tear down the system. I just want figures in authority behave as if they deserve the authority they have.

2. The religious rationalization comes FROM the moral of purity. "Code" is a code word that has a lot of hidden and contradictory meanings itself. The vast amount of moral thought in history has been intertwined with religion and religious thought.

When you think purity, you don't think hotdogs, what do you really think of?

Honestly? When I think of "purity", the first thing that comes to mind are those horrific "purity pledge" dances that some fathers drag their daughters to. When I think hot dogs, I usually thing "ketchup, and onions...yum," You are right that religion has spent the majority of history infecting the concept of morality with itself. Fortunately, we seem to finally be seeing a generation learning how to separate the concept of morality from the dependence on fairy tales, and superstition.

 

[BreezeWood]

.


you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.


no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.



So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right?

whatever are you talking about ... apparently you haven't the foggiest notion what is meant by evolution. from the beginning. and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life. the same as your own lack of understanding for its evolution form the scientifically correct initial template.

You can't argue with Breezewood. He can account for anything. The holistic ideas he likes START as "These universal truths I possess affect all things at all times.", and then they go from there. It's magical thinking. Leaf in the wind? See! Told ya!

you are the only person obsessed with "magical thinking" used by you repeatedly as your deflection for the shortcircuited feeble responses you generate as your reply's evidenced by your above post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right?

whatever are you talking about ... apparently you haven't the foggiest notion what is meant by evolution. from the beginning. and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life. the same as your own lack of understanding for its evolution form the scientifically correct initial template.

You can't argue with Breezewood. He can account for anything. The holistic ideas he likes START as "These universal truths I possess affect all things at all times.", and then they go from there. It's magical thinking. Leaf in the wind? See! Told ya!

you are the only person obsessed with "magical thinking" used by you repeatedly as your deflection for the shortcircuited feeble responses you generate as your reply's evidenced by your above post.

No crybaby, I use that term for exactly the reasons I present when I use it. These reasons make you degenerate into an angry little blob, so you invent new ones and ascribe them to me, in an effort to soothe yourself.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.

you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

.

Soo...all humans come from an identical template? Like Adam and Eve?

all beings are derived from an initial template, the first life set in motion by the metaphysical and directed by the genome as physiology used for evolutionary change.

I would suspect they did not understand why there are partners when they wrote genesis as that division makes less likely an initial creation for both made sense as the same sense all life originated from a single source - just not Adam and Eve.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right? If that were the case, everyone would have basically the same genetics, we wouldn't have racial differences, or different eye colours, or any of the other thousands of differences in the genetic map.

You do get that genetics precludes a single source (template) for humanity, right?

whatever are you talking about ... apparently you haven't the foggiest notion what is meant by evolution. from the beginning. and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life. the same as your own lack of understanding for its evolution form the scientifically correct initial template.

You can't argue with Breezewood. He can account for anything. The holistic ideas he likes START as "These universal truths I possess affect all things at all times.", and then they go from there. It's magical thinking. Leaf in the wind? See! Told ya!

you are the only person obsessed with "magical thinking" used by you repeatedly as your deflection for the shortcircuited feeble responses you generate as your reply's evidenced by your above post.

The only one who doesn't understand how evolution works is you. Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template. On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes, and those that were conducive to survival of the species continued through progeny, while those that were not dies out. Sorry. Your "template" fantasy is adorable, but not scientifically sound.

 

[BreezeWood]

No crybaby, I use that term for exactly the reasons I present when I use it. These reasons make you degenerate into an angry little blob, so you invent new ones and ascribe them to me, in an effort to soothe yourself.

The only one who doesn't understand how evolution works is you. Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template. On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes, and those that were conducive to survival of the species continued through progeny, while those that were not dies out. Sorry. Your "template" fantasy is adorable, but not scientifically sound.

Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template ... On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes,

you contradict yourself in the same paragraph or you simply haven't the foresight to understand the emergence of life from its beginning template ...

- and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life.

nor do you understand the reasoning for the discussion in that the contradiction found in the desert religions is not, obviously from their responses, understood or answered by the atheists.

 

[Czernobog]

No crybaby, I use that term for exactly the reasons I present when I use it. These reasons make you degenerate into an angry little blob, so you invent new ones and ascribe them to me, in an effort to soothe yourself.

The only one who doesn't understand how evolution works is you. Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template. On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes, and those that were conducive to survival of the species continued through progeny, while those that were not dies out. Sorry. Your "template" fantasy is adorable, but not scientifically sound.

Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template ... On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes,

you contradict yourself in the same paragraph or you simply haven't the foresight to understand the emergence of life from its beginning template ...

- and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life.

nor do you understand the reasoning for the discussion in that the contradiction found in the desert religions is not, obviously from their responses, understood or answered by the atheists.

I contradicted nothing. When I speak of "may mutations", I am talking about among many different primates. In other words, not a single template, but mutations within a population. Different mutations, some of which aided in survival, thus continued through procreation, some that didn't, and thus died out. You want to act like there was some single template that was designed fully functioning, and it just started cranking out humans, as we are now. Sorry. That's not how it worked.

 

[BreezeWood]

No crybaby, I use that term for exactly the reasons I present when I use it. These reasons make you degenerate into an angry little blob, so you invent new ones and ascribe them to me, in an effort to soothe yourself.

The only one who doesn't understand how evolution works is you. Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template. On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes, and those that were conducive to survival of the species continued through progeny, while those that were not dies out. Sorry. Your "template" fantasy is adorable, but not scientifically sound.

Evolution does not posit that all of humanity came from a single template ... On the contrary, the theory of evolution posits that many mutations developed in our common ancestors with the great apes,

you contradict yourself in the same paragraph or you simply haven't the foresight to understand the emergence of life from its beginning template ...

- and do not understand from that standpoint of creation in genesis their difficulty to rationalize a pair of beings, Adam & Eve as opposed to the initial presence of life.

nor do you understand the reasoning for the discussion in that the contradiction found in the desert religions is not, obviously from their responses, understood or answered by the atheists.

I contradicted nothing. When I speak of "may mutations", I am talking about among many different primates. In other words, not a single template, but mutations within a population. Different mutations, some of which aided in survival, thus continued through procreation, some that didn't, and thus died out. You want to act like there was some single template that was designed fully functioning, and it just started cranking out humans, as we are now. Sorry. That's not how it worked.

.

I contradicted nothing. When I speak of "may mutations", I am talking about among many different primates. In other words, not a single template, but mutations within a population.

You want to act like there was some single template that was designed fully functioning, and it just started cranking out humans, as we are now. Sorry. That's not how it worked.

you seriously have a reading disorder ....

 

[daisiesRwild]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

except one thingthere are onoy twochoices if you are not of God then you are of Satan tuff breaks