if not evolution

[ding]

You need a scientific paper to tell you that it is a universal truth that two kind people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people?

There goes the point, sailing over your head again.

No~ I'd need a scientific paper establishing that the values humans hold in society are universal to: intelligent aliens, other dimensional beings, etc.

i.e. what the word 'universal' literally means, which isnt "subjective to the human experience."

So you don't know what virtuous behaviors are?

I understand that humans, through community and reasoning, follow certain virtues as a result of said experience.

This, of course, doesnt speak to a logical proof that virtues are universal.

Take your time absorbing that.

So you don't think compassion is universally understood? Do you think cruelty is universally understood?

If you were the recipient of both, do you think you could tell the difference between the two?

Understood universally by ->?

If we are talking subjective to human knowledge and experience, sure.....but you're reaching... to call things "universal," with your limited human experience. Its ok, hubris....but you dont know every living creature ever in the whole entire universe, ever.

By everyone but you. You are playing word games.

Try viewing virtue versus lack of virtue and then maybe you will get it.

 

[ding]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

That's really a great observation.

Virtue can't be coerced. *Conformance* can be coerced, but in order for virtue to be exercised, there needs to be freedom of action with which to demonstrate one's virtue. There's a saying that "character is determined by what one does when no one is looking". The "no one looking" part is the important part – if no one is looking, you can get away with it, but what will you do? Merely following a set of rote commands because you feel forced or coerced to abide by the dogma - you are threatened with eternal punishment if you don't - isn't virtuous.

It's a paradox: virtue and character are only made manifest through choice and freedom. Pity that “dogma’tists” can’t seem to fathom this.

Virtue is a construct, and a fairly relative one at that. What is or is not virtue is ultimately decided by reason. And one may choose to be virtuous, but that one is not really consciously in control of that choice, as free will is an illusion. So whether or not one is virtuous can as dependent on what has happened to a person as it is on their genetics.

Why do you think that virtue is a construct and what makes you think it is a fairly recent one?

Not "fairly recent"...."fairly relative"

Virtue is a construct of the human mind, as is every other philosophical construct. This is self evident. I think you carry the burden to explain that it is not and why it is not, if this is what you are claiming.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

ok, sure ....???

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

your post is full of shit since you have NO idea about my emotional feelings of my post--do you?
YOU have a pre-conceived idea ......
''gleefully''.............where does that come from?? obviously you are wrong

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

your post is full of shit since you have NO idea about my emotional feelings of my post--do you?
YOU have a pre-conceived idea ......
''gleefully''.............where does that come from?? obviously you are wrong

Whenever you are done dancing, prancing, and preening, let's hear your explanation. Go on, take your time...

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little
Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

your post is full of shit since you have NO idea about my emotional feelings of my post--do you?
YOU have a pre-conceived idea ......
''gleefully''.............where does that come from?? obviously you are wrong

Whenever you are done dancing, prancing, and preening, let's hear your explanation. Go on, take your time...

I will

 

[Boss]

Evolution is a theory explaining how organisms change over time. It does not have anything to do with the origin of organisms. In order for any organism to evolve, it has to first exist. You can say that it's impossible to believe man was simply created out of nothing but the fact remains, it's equally impossible for a living organism to have been simply created out of nothing as well.

Abiogenesis is a theory that has not been proved. It contradicts biogenesis. We can't say that it isn't true because life does exist and it had to come from somewhere. The question is, did it come from normal physical phenomenon or something else? Since we cannot reproduce any normal sequence where it could have happened as the result of normal physical phenomenon, the question of something else remains relevant.

Science is about examining the physical universe. It doesn't draw a conclusion. The conclusions are made by man alone, not Science. To dismiss the possibility of something outside our current understanding of physical nature is antithetical to Science. It's entirely possible that we simply don't yet understand the mechanisms by which life originated because we lack that knowledge. That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible. Again, to dismiss such a possibility is not Scientific, it's the antithesis of Science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little"

Why don't YOU explain it to us? Go on, you brought it up. Explain it for us.

it's simple--I've explained it already if you have been reading and can understand the posts---it's in my other post!
it's right there!!!--in your reply...you must have missed reading it or don't understand

there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc

Nice try. You explained nothing. Your explanation must say why those factors lead to the outcomes you pointed out....why these factors are different for this subset you so gleefully focus on.

Now, go on, grow a pair and explain it.

your post is full of shit since you have NO idea about my emotional feelings of my post--do you?
YOU have a pre-conceived idea ......
''gleefully''.............where does that come from?? obviously you are wrong

Whenever you are done dancing, prancing, and preening, let's hear your explanation. Go on, take your time...

I will

Oh, I know. You dog whistle sissies are all exactly the same. You pretend to incredulously ask these questions. Then, when you are confronted and asked to answer your own questions (and clearly you have answers at hand), you wilt like lettuce in the Sun. Why? Because you know you will expose yourself for what you really are, should you answer honestly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is a theory explaining how organisms change over time. It does not have anything to do with the origin of organisms. In order for any organism to evolve, it has to first exist. You can say that it's impossible to believe man was simply created out of nothing but the fact remains, it's equally impossible for a living organism to have been simply created out of nothing as well.

Abiogenesis is a theory that has not been proved. It contradicts biogenesis. We can't say that it isn't true because life does exist and it had to come from somewhere. The question is, did it come from normal physical phenomenon or something else? Since we cannot reproduce any normal sequence where it could have happened as the result of normal physical phenomenon, the question of something else remains relevant.

Science is about examining the physical universe. It doesn't draw a conclusion. The conclusions are made by man alone, not Science. To dismiss the possibility of something outside our current understanding of physical nature is antithetical to Science. It's entirely possible that we simply don't yet understand the mechanisms by which life originated because we lack that knowledge. That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible. Again, to dismiss such a possibility is not Scientific, it's the antithesis of Science.

No scientist on the planet thinks the first organisms were created from nothing. For you to say otherwise is a shameless lie meant only to create low hanging fruit for yourself.

Abiogenesis as the origin of the first life does not contradict biogenesis, that's another lie. Biogenesis still holds from that point forward.

The question of something else does not remain relevant in science. It only remains "relevant" in the rhetoric and dogma of those who want to wedge magical bullshit into current gaps in our understanding.

 

[Boss]

No scientist on the planet thinks the first organisms were created from nothing. For you to say otherwise is a shameless lie meant only to create low hanging fruit for yourself.

Abiogenesis as the origin of the first life does not contradict biogenesis, that's another lie. Biogenesis still holds from that point forward.

The question of something else does not remain relevant in science. It only remains "relevant" in the rhetoric and dogma of those who want to wedge magical bullshit into current gaps in our understanding.

Biogenesis is the theory that life comes from other life. Abiogenesis is the theory that life comes from inorganic material. That's a direct contradiction. Sorry.... just is.

Anything remains relevant in Science until Science can conclusively disprove it through demonstration and observation. You have not proven through demonstration and observation that life did not originate as the result of some force outside know physics. Until you can do that, you have no basis to claim that such is not possible. That can be your FAITH and BELIEF but it's not supported by Science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No scientist on the planet thinks the first organisms were created from nothing. For you to say otherwise is a shameless lie meant only to create low hanging fruit for yourself.

Abiogenesis as the origin of the first life does not contradict biogenesis, that's another lie. Biogenesis still holds from that point forward.

The question of something else does not remain relevant in science. It only remains "relevant" in the rhetoric and dogma of those who want to wedge magical bullshit into current gaps in our understanding.

Biogenesis is the theory that life comes from other life. Abiogenesis is the theory that life comes from inorganic material. That's a direct contradiction. Sorry.... just is.

Anything remains relevant in Science until Science can conclusively disprove it through demonstration and observation. You have not proven through demonstration and observation that life did not originate as the result of some force outside know physics. Until you can do that, you have no basis to claim that such is not possible. That can be your FAITH and BELIEF but it's not supported by Science.

They are not in direct contradiction, when looking at abiogenesis as the origin of the earliest organisms. This is a fact, and it doesn't care what idiotic, magical narrative you have chosen for today.

It does not need to be proven that the origin of life originated via deterministic processes. This is assumed for the purpose of doing science. Might some magical creationism be the truth? Sure, but science has no use for such magical nonsense. Abiogenesis is not "an explanation for the first life". It is the formation of life. Explaining abiogenesis is to explain the origin of life.

It is fascinating to watch the magical bullshit you still cling to degenerate through the years , as we gain more scientific knowledge. You magical thinkers are now left with this tiny gap at the origin of the first species on Earth into which to wedge your magical bullshit. We'll close that gap soon enough. Then where will you ply your fetish? Big Bang, I suppose.

 

[MarkDuffy]

No scientist on the planet thinks the first organisms were created from nothing. For you to say otherwise is a shameless lie meant only to create low hanging fruit for yourself.

Abiogenesis as the origin of the first life does not contradict biogenesis, that's another lie. Biogenesis still holds from that point forward.

The question of something else does not remain relevant in science. It only remains "relevant" in the rhetoric and dogma of those who want to wedge magical bullshit into current gaps in our understanding.

Biogenesis is the theory that life comes from other life. Abiogenesis is the theory that life comes from inorganic material. That's a direct contradiction. Sorry.... just is.

Anything remains relevant in Science until Science can conclusively disprove it through demonstration and observation. You have not proven through demonstration and observation that life did not originate as the result of some force outside know physics. Until you can do that, you have no basis to claim that such is not possible. That can be your FAITH and BELIEF but it's not supported by Science.

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

 

[MarkDuffy]

Evolution is a theory explaining how organisms change over time. It does not have anything to do with the origin of organisms. In order for any organism to evolve, it has to first exist. You can say that it's impossible to believe man was simply created out of nothing but the fact remains, it's equally impossible for a living organism to have been simply created out of nothing as well.

Abiogenesis is a theory that has not been proved. It contradicts biogenesis. We can't say that it isn't true because life does exist and it had to come from somewhere. The question is, did it come from normal physical phenomenon or something else? Since we cannot reproduce any normal sequence where it could have happened as the result of normal physical phenomenon, the question of something else remains relevant.

Science is about examining the physical universe. It doesn't draw a conclusion. The conclusions are made by man alone, not Science. To dismiss the possibility of something outside our current understanding of physical nature is antithetical to Science. It's entirely possible that we simply don't yet understand the mechanisms by which life originated because we lack that knowledge. That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible. Again, to dismiss such a possibility is not Scientific, it's the antithesis of Science.

That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible.

And this force needs to explain its creation

 

[ding]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.

"But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous."

And neither are you virtuous if your virtue is dictated by a religious code, and you onlynattempt to adhere to it out of pure selfishness to save your imaginary eternal soul.

That's really a great observation.

Virtue can't be coerced. *Conformance* can be coerced, but in order for virtue to be exercised, there needs to be freedom of action with which to demonstrate one's virtue. There's a saying that "character is determined by what one does when no one is looking". The "no one looking" part is the important part – if no one is looking, you can get away with it, but what will you do? Merely following a set of rote commands because you feel forced or coerced to abide by the dogma - you are threatened with eternal punishment if you don't - isn't virtuous.

It's a paradox: virtue and character are only made manifest through choice and freedom. Pity that “dogma’tists” can’t seem to fathom this.

Virtue is a construct, and a fairly relative one at that. What is or is not virtue is ultimately decided by reason. And one may choose to be virtuous, but that one is not really consciously in control of that choice, as free will is an illusion. So whether or not one is virtuous can as dependent on what has happened to a person as it is on their genetics.

Why do you think that virtue is a construct and what makes you think it is a fairly recent one?

Not "fairly recent"...."fairly relative"

Virtue is a construct of the human mind, as is every other philosophical construct. This is self evident. I think you carry the burden to explain that it is not and why it is not, if this is what you are claiming.

And yet these are behaviors which have shown to naturally lead to success. Whereas societies which were devoid of virtue naturally lead to failure.

 

[ding]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.