Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[The Irish Ram]

My experience is that most people that want to "smack" me want to do it because they can't handle my arguments.
Boss is a great example. He loses his mind when I point out how he has tripped on his sneakers, which happens with great regularity. He flies into invective and vulgarities. Newby does the same, as does Cecilie.
Thanks for the input, but I enjoy my style.
What is "acceptable" to you is not of a great concern to me.
If you want to be taken seriously, I expect to see you confront the believers that like to use every mode of vulgarity invented, and new ones they come up with.
I never do that. I leave the low road to them.

Rest assured I am not one of those people. Your arrogance and the disagreeable tone you take with posters makes me want to smack you.

I rarely get past the insults to read any argument you may be trying to make. What you call "style" I consider immaturity. Your attitude out weighs any point you may be trying to make. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even get out of the starting blocks.

And, I'm not here so that you will take me seriously. I'm here because of my co-mission with Christ, to spread the good news.

Is there a lower road than making yourself look better by degrading others?

It's good you aren't trying to be taken seriously.
When you start holding believers to the same standards it will be a start. I won't hold my breath.
Thank you for saying I make myself look better than others, though.

Sadly, I didn't and you don't. You look like you can't win an argument based on it's merit, so you stoop to insults to hide your insecurities.
It's neither of our jobs to hold anybody to any standard. I'll leave that to the Pharisees.

I am serious about what I say, not who I might impress.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Rest assured I am not one of those people. Your arrogance and the disagreeable tone you take with posters makes me want to smack you.

I rarely get past the insults to read any argument you may be trying to make. What you call "style" I consider immaturity. Your attitude out weighs any point you may be trying to make. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even get out of the starting blocks.

And, I'm not here so that you will take me seriously. I'm here because of my co-mission with Christ, to spread the good news.

Is there a lower road than making yourself look better by degrading others?

It's good you aren't trying to be taken seriously.
When you start holding believers to the same standards it will be a start. I won't hold my breath.
Thank you for saying I make myself look better than others, though.

Sadly, I didn't and you don't. You look like you can't win an argument based on it's merit, so you stoop to insults to hide your insecurities.
It's neither of our jobs to hold anybody to any standard. I'll leave that to the Pharisees.

I am serious about what I say, not who I might impress.

Are you not trying to hold me to a standard?
LOL!
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Keep going.
The hypocrisy just gets thicker.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Bruce! Not convincing someone of your premise does not an explosion make. I know how important you are, but there are a variety of people here with which to exchange ideas.
When you retired this foolishness was "common courtesy" < (social norm) sidelined as well? Are you simply unable to comment on a subject without hurling personal insults?
Are you that insecure?
Knock that sh*t off.........

No, I don't think I will.
You see, I made a perfectly sound argument and all he has done is ignore it and not defend his premise at all but simply goes and uses it on someone else without coping with the objections.
That is argumentative cowardice.

Bruce, I didn't say back off of the debate, I'm saying to present your case in a more acceptable manner. I would like to read your point of view without wanting to smack you first. I think you are smart enough to present your case without resorting to personal affronts. Seriously.

Try this> type your post in the usual manner, and then delete any sentences that are directed at anything other than the topic at hand. Even to the point of disregarding any sentences directed at you, in favor of a debate unencumbered by personality conflicts.

Bruce, I didn't say back off of the debate, I'm saying to present your case in a more acceptable manner. I would like to read your point of view without wanting to smack you first. I think you are smart enough to present your case without resorting to personal affronts. Seriously.

Try this> type your post in the usual manner, and then delete any sentences that are directed at anything other than the topic at hand. Even to the point of disregarding any sentences directed at you, in favor of a debate unencumbered by personality conflicts.

My experience is that most people that want to "smack" me want to do it because they can't handle my arguments.
Boss is a great example. He loses his mind when I point out how he has tripped on his sneakers, which happens with great regularity. He flies into invective and vulgarities. Newby does the same, as does Cecilie.
Thanks for the input, but I enjoy my style.
What is "acceptable" to you is not of a great concern to me.
If you want to be taken seriously, I expect to see you confront the believers that like to use every mode of vulgarity invented, and new ones they come up with.
I never do that. I leave the low road to them.

Rest assured I am not one of those people. Your arrogance and the disagreeable tone you take with posters makes me want to smack you.

I rarely get past the insults to read any argument you may be trying to make. What you call "style" I consider immaturity. Your attitude out weighs any point you may be trying to make. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even get out of the starting blocks.

And, I'm not here so that you will take me seriously. I'm here because of my co-mission with Christ, to spread the good news.

Is there a lower road than making yourself look better by degrading others?

I had to repost this because it is so damned funny!
See the red part above!
You haven't been addressing the OP with me for pages!
LOL!!!!
You want to pretend you are above it all, but you are just another hypocrite.
We should do what you say, not what you do?
Is that the message?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

Of course there is.

It's defined by anyone with the power to enforce their definition of it for as long as they hold power, whether on an individual, community or corporate basis.

The only reason murder is wrong is because a lot of us agree that it's wrong, and that extends to a willingness to be taxed in order to pay for violent enforcement of a rule against murder.



Religion won't answer this question until one of the gods being worshiped successfully steps in to our reality and violently enforces His Laws among the non believers.

Actually, that's happened more than once in biblical history and it's promised that it will happen again. Believe it or don't believe it. That's between you and God.

But right and wrong aren't just nebulous concepts that float around waiting to be defined. I don't need a society to tell me what its concept of right and wrong is. Society's opinions sway like a reed in the wind. When Cain murdered his brother Abel it was wrong. When Lizzy Borden murdered her parents it was wrong. When Jeffery Dahmer murdered his victims it was wrong. Murder is wrong in Russia, Spain, Israel, Egypt, Canada, Brazil, and the USA. It has been, is, and always will be wrong. On the other hand, treating folks kindly, charitably, and empathetically will always be right no matter what the era or geographical location.

Essentially, statements like this make me think you weren't looking to have an actual discussion. Your motive was to get people who disagree with you to answer, and then to say, "You're wrong! The Bible says so!"

I don't understand how or why this activity entertains you.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, I don't think I will.
You see, I made a perfectly sound argument and all he has done is ignore it and not defend his premise at all but simply goes and uses it on someone else without coping with the objections.
That is argumentative cowardice.

Bruce, I didn't say back off of the debate, I'm saying to present your case in a more acceptable manner. I would like to read your point of view without wanting to smack you first. I think you are smart enough to present your case without resorting to personal affronts. Seriously.

Try this> type your post in the usual manner, and then delete any sentences that are directed at anything other than the topic at hand. Even to the point of disregarding any sentences directed at you, in favor of a debate unencumbered by personality conflicts.

Rest assured I am not one of those people. Your arrogance and the disagreeable tone you take with posters makes me want to smack you.

I rarely get past the insults to read any argument you may be trying to make. What you call "style" I consider immaturity. Your attitude out weighs any point you may be trying to make. You shoot yourself in the foot before you even get out of the starting blocks.

And, I'm not here so that you will take me seriously. I'm here because of my co-mission with Christ, to spread the good news.

Is there a lower road than making yourself look better by degrading others?

I had to repost this because it is so damned funny!
See the red part above!
You haven't been addressing the OP with me for pages!
LOL!!!!
You want to pretend you are above it all, but you are just another hypocrite.
We should do what you say, not what you do?
Is that the message?

And if I quote you, my advice shows up for a third time.

night.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe the conscience is that place in our being where God communicates to us most often.

You're free to believe that. There's just no reason to accept it as true.

There's lots of reason to accept it as true (if you understand how God works and communicates with His creation).

Titus 1:15, "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

Not everyone seeks a clear conscience nor to every man is it given.

Nonsense.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, and consequently no ‘communication’ as perceived by theists.

What are being communicated are the ancient stories, myths, and legends that have been cobbled together over the millennia to form the religions we see today, including Christianity.

Religion and god are creations of man, a product of his fear, ignorance, and arrogance, which is why citing bible quotes is pointless and ridiculous, as the bible was written by men, rendering it subjective and irrelevant.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Okay, onto the OP.

First off, its a logical fallacy to imply that having a religious source for your moral values is somehow more objective than forming your own values based on your own feelings and opinions. It is not. The fact that you accept as fact the testimony of someone else's words is, in and of itself, subjective, and you cannot call "objective" any beliefs based on a subjective opinion.

All of our standards for right and wrong, those of atheists Christians Muslims agnostics bisexuals and lizard people, are subjective.

If you believers can yank your heads out of your dogma holes for just a sec and pretend, for the sake of discussion, that you recognize that your faith is in fact faith, it would help you conceptualize the -FACT- that your source for morality is as subjective as any, and -that- would, in turn, help you recognize that, since no factual source for morality can be proven, there are no factual moral absolutes.

If they're all based in opinion, the closest thing we have to a hard standard for any moral is practicality, and even -that- is subjective.

There is a liberating aspect to recognizing that your own religious beliefs are subjective, however, and that is this: If you, without actual, conclusive proof of a moral absolute, managed to find yourself compelled to obey a set of moral standards, then other human beings are likely to have a propensity for that same compulsion.

Evidence?

There's no lack of morals in atheist China. Their entire system of government is based on the moral value of economic collectivism, and this purely moral-driven government is anti-religious.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Actually, that's happened more than once in biblical history and it's promised that it will happen again. Believe it or don't believe it. That's between you and God.

But right and wrong aren't just nebulous concepts that float around waiting to be defined. I don't need a society to tell me what its concept of right and wrong is. Society's opinions sway like a reed in the wind. When Cain murdered his brother Abel it was wrong. When Lizzy Borden murdered her parents it was wrong. When Jeffery Dahmer murdered his victims it was wrong. Murder is wrong in Russia, Spain, Israel, Egypt, Canada, Brazil, and the USA. It has been, is, and always will be wrong. On the other hand, treating folks kindly, charitably, and empathetically will always be right no matter what the era or geographical location.

There is no proof of the miraculous in history. Admittedly, some of the stories are more convincing than others, but proof eludes.

God's first proven defense of Himself remains in the future.

Sweetheart Joe, What proof do you require? I can give you three documented eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ returning to earth after being pronounced dead. Does He have to come back every Easter?

I can run a quick search on Google and post you links to countless, documented, eye-witness accounts of everything from UFO abductions to Elvis sightings.

How compelling should I find hear-say?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Is there such a thing as "right" and "wrong"? That question is to the individual but first we must identify if there are any strongholds in the persons belief system that are keeping them blinded to the truth.

Example: A person is diagnosed with sleep disorder. They are prescribed zanax. ( example ) They use it to sleep and a stronghold develops in the mind which tells the person you cannot sleep without this drug. Some people will become convinced that never again will they sleep without it. Now they are addicted to a synthetic drug which is harming them and they cannot seem to get free of it. Why? They have believed a lie. The drug is the only alternative if they want sleep. What does the Word of God say? That his beloved will sleep! That the sleep will be restful and blessed. Believe the Word of God and go back to the doctor declaring this is not what God tells me about my ability to sleep. I choose to be drug free and want to be taken off this drug. Then proceed to declare the Word of God over your situation until you are sleeping well without anything. Conquer the strongholds in your mind with the Word of God and demolishes every stronghold ( lie ) the enemy has built therein. All battles begin in the spirit realm. The manifestation is what you see in the natural realm.

You're right. There are often "strongholds" in the minds of individuals that keep them from answering this question with any objectiveness.

Example: A person grew up in Georgia. Virtually everyone in their town goes to the same church. From the very beginning of this person's intellectual development, its parents and literally every person that it trusts as a source of the valuable information that it's absorbing and implementing for its very survival, tells it that the Bible is truth and that the alternative is an eternity in hellfire. This being then must accept an entire set of moral values as good and evil. This creates a stronghold in the person's brain that prevents them from analyzing any of these particular moral values on an individual, logical level. Thus, this strong hold prevents that human from even attempting to view a proposed moral value objectively.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Bruce, I didn't say back off of the debate, I'm saying to present your case in a more acceptable manner. I would like to read your point of view without wanting to smack you first. I think you are smart enough to present your case without resorting to personal affronts. Seriously.

Try this> type your post in the usual manner, and then delete any sentences that are directed at anything other than the topic at hand. Even to the point of disregarding any sentences directed at you, in favor of a debate unencumbered by personality conflicts.[/QUOTE]



I had to repost this because it is so damned funny!
See the red part above!
You haven't been addressing the OP with me for pages!
LOL!!!!
You want to pretend you are above it all, but you are just another hypocrite.
We should do what you say, not what you do?
Is that the message?

And if I quote you, my advice shows up for a third time.

night.

And now your hypocrisy for a fourth!

 

[amrchaos]

I wonder

Do the (moral) Absolutist think that free will is undermining how the (moral) Pragmatists should approach this topic?

It is free will and the lack of direct interaction with a diety that appears to be the foundation of the pragmatists argument

 

[PainefulTruth]

Children are a gift from God. Their lives are sacred because God says so.

Prove it.

Wow. A human life is compared to a fly? Killing an unborn human life is like swatting a fly?

That was a reference to "Pro"-Life bumper stickers making that comparison by saying that abortion stops a beating heart.

An unborn human's moral right to exist happens at the moment of conception. It wouldn't begin to grow if it didn't naturally "choose" to do so.

So a seed of corn "chooses" to grow? And oh yeah, the heart doesn't start until about 3 months, and we don't develop a consciousness until after that, and self-awareness/free will until well after that.

All this blather written based on a stupid assed question?

Idiots

It's an excellent question. There is a reasonably derived, objective, universal moral code. The problem is the religious right adds all kinds of stuff which makes the idea seem absurd; and the political left promotes subjective morality so it can justify what it deems to be moral, while at the same time claiming that nothing is immoral.

So yes, there are many idiots, just not the ones you were grouping under that label.

I chose to ignore that insult because Darwinians are determined to make sure the sucker fish have the same rights as humans. After all we came from the apes, right? Wrong!

OMG.

We may be descended from apes, but our self-aware derived free will sets us apart from the animals--it's what makes us in the image of God. That same self-awareness makes us moral beings, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, which is innocent.

My conscience determines what I consider to be right or wrong.

Such was the stuff of the Holocaust, and the fact that all evil is justified by vanity which for many people, outranks the conscience.

Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

Of course there is.

It's defined by anyone with the power to enforce their definition of it for as long as they hold power, whether on an individual, community or corporate basis.

Corruption defines corrupt law, but basic morality remains universal despite those that try to hide it, or modify it to their benefit.

The only reason murder is wrong is because a lot of us agree that it's wrong, and that extends to a willingness to be taxed in order to pay for violent enforcement of a rule against murder.

The reason murder is wrong, is because it's one sentient being determining that it is elite and therefore justified for that reason alone to violate the right of another to its life. Such a legal/moral double standard is the root of all evil.

Religion won't answer this question until one of the gods being worshiped successfully steps in to our reality and violently enforces His Laws among the non believers.

Since all revealed gods are phoney, it looks like it's up to us to be reasonable, which revealed religion and revealed politics oppose for their obvious self-serving purposes.

 

[amrchaos]

Lots of answers but nobody has a basis for their opinion (so far).

To a hungry person who enjoys the flavor of human flesh it is "right" to kill a human for food. Why is that person wrong?

Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?

So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.

I think I can try answer this question in a general form as follows

My underlining reasons for my opinion is based on my beliefs, rationale, perception and experiences--even my emotions may have a influence in shaping this opinion.

To be honest, everyone.does this. You have admitted to doing one of the above and don't even realize!

 

[DriftingSand]

You're free to believe that. There's just no reason to accept it as true.

There's lots of reason to accept it as true (if you understand how God works and communicates with His creation).

Titus 1:15, "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

Not everyone seeks a clear conscience nor to every man is it given.

Nonsense.

There is no &#8216;god&#8217; as perceived by theists, and consequently no &#8216;communication&#8217; as perceived by theists.

What are being communicated are the ancient stories, myths, and legends that have been cobbled together over the millennia to form the religions we see today, including Christianity.

Religion and god are creations of man, a product of his fear, ignorance, and arrogance, which is why citing bible quotes is pointless and ridiculous, as the bible was written by men, rendering it subjective and irrelevant.

Says another self-proclaimed "god" who knows all and sees all. Man is a creation of God but man wants to play god and do as he wills -- including defining right and wrong based on personal whims. Men were inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit.

Now the Communist Manifesto, Humanist Manifesto(s), and the "Origins of Species" were written by man and are purely man-centered.

 

[DriftingSand]

Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?

So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.

I think I can try answer this question in a general form as follows

My underlining reasons for my opinion is based on my beliefs, rationale, perception and experiences--even my emotions may have a influence in shaping this opinion.

To be honest, everyone.does this. You have admitted to doing one of the above and don't even realize!

Certainly! I know what my "standard" is but I'm often led by my flesh to do as I please instead of following my conscience and the leading of the Spirit. I try to learn from my mistakes and become stronger in spirit the next time around. This process is called sanctification and occurs over time. I've never claimed to be perfect. The only perfect man was Christ. He set the example. I can only do my best to follow it. He defines right and wrong in my life and my conscience is seared when I fail to do what I know is right. Fortunately, He sacrificed Himself on our behalf and is quick to forgive if and when we ask for forgiveness.

 

[DriftingSand]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

In the simplest form I'm going to attempt to show an order of events (again, in elementary form):

1) There was absolutely nothing. No matter and no thought.
2) From this absolute nothingness **boom** an explosion took place and an entire universe (and universes) **poofed** onto the scene. Still no thought or biological life but lots and lots of mineral-based matter just appeared out of thin air.
3) Gases and matter just floated around the universe for a few billion years (trillion??) when out of the blue **poof** organic life miraculously appeared. Okay ... no such thing as miracles. So by some chaotic mistake, organic life just appeared by pure happenstance. There was no rhyme or reason for all of these events and certainly no intelligent plan.
4) This new organism had an extremely long life. Long enough for it to wait for another organism to appear to mate with and produce other long-living organisms to arrive and start evolving into other forms of organism. Another miracle ... I mean ... another big mistake based on chance. Nobody knows for sure what the first organism ate during that time but it must have been mineral-based food (unless, that is, plant life appeared by shear mistake at the exact same time).
5) At this point there still is no intelligence or moral standard. It's simply survival of the fittest and minute organisms adapting to some phantom "environment." Why it needed to evolve is still unknown. Why would it need to evolve if it had everything it needed to survive in the first place? But enough of these common sense (I mean silly) questions.
6) One day **poof** this bacterial type of organism decided to become a mammal complete with hair, vision, opposing thumbs, a beating heart, complex cells, and a list of other operational "mistakes." Still no moral standard at this point. Just apelike creatures walking around eating fruit that evolved from the original organism's mineral diet.
7) Then, one day, the apelike creature became intelligent and developed a moral standard of right and wrong.

So ... the moral of the story is that chance and lack of morals give way to design, intelligence, and morality.

For me, it makes a lot more logical sense to believe that all things were designed and made by something than to believe that all things were designed and made by nothing. Man reflects a moral standard and a high level of intelligence. As they say ... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Man is the apple of God's eye.

 

[BreezeWood]

All of our standards for right and wrong, those of atheists Christians Muslims agnostics bisexuals and lizard people, are subjective.

(All) of our standards ... are subjective until proven otherwise by the existence of those that are definable by the forces of nature.

.

 

[DriftingSand]

All of our standards for right and wrong, those of atheists Christians Muslims agnostics bisexuals and lizard people, are subjective.

(All) of our standards ... are subjective until proven otherwise by the existence of those that are definable by the forces of nature.

.

Man, left to his own devices, will fail to reach a high level of standards on a consistent basis. He's been changing the rules over and over and over again for centuries. It's one reason we have these endless wars. Mankind can agree on nothing (religious and non-religious included).

 

[amrchaos]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

In the simplest form I'm going to attempt to show an order of events (again, in elementary form):

1) There was absolutely nothing. No matter and no thought.
2) From this absolute nothingness **boom** an explosion took place and an entire universe (and universes) **poofed** onto the scene. Still no thought or biological life but lots and lots of mineral-based matter just appeared out of thin air.
3) Gases and matter just floated around the universe for a few billion years (trillion??) when out of the blue **poof** organic life miraculously appeared. Okay ... no such thing as miracles. So by some chaotic mistake, organic life just appeared by pure happenstance. There was no rhyme or reason for all of these events and certainly no intelligent plan.
4) This new organism had an extremely long life. Long enough for it to wait for another organism to appear to mate with and produce other long-living organisms to arrive and start evolving into other forms of organism. Another miracle ... I mean ... another big mistake based on chance. Nobody knows for sure what the first organism ate during that time but it must have been mineral-based food (unless, that is, plant life appeared by shear mistake at the exact same time).
5) At this point there still is no intelligence or moral standard. It's simply survival of the fittest and minute organisms adapting to some phantom "environment." Why it needed to evolve is still unknown. Why would it need to evolve if it had everything it needed to survive in the first place? But enough of these common sense (I mean silly) questions.
6) One day **poof** this bacterial type of organism decided to become a mammal complete with hair, vision, opposing thumbs, a beating heart, complex cells, and a list of other operational "mistakes." Still no moral standard at this point. Just apelike creatures walking around eating fruit that evolved from the original organism's mineral diet.
7) Then, one day, the apelike creature became intelligent and developed a moral standard of right and wrong.

So ... the moral of the story is that chance and lack of morals give way to design, intelligence, and morality.

For me, it makes a lot more logical sense to believe that all things were designed and made by something than to believe that all things were designed and made by nothing. Man reflects a moral standard and a high level of intelligence. As they say ... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Man is the apple of God's eye.

I say up to three I could follow you but 4, there is a problem

You made the assumption that all lifeforms need a mate, however there exist lifeforms that are asexual. Reproduce without a mate.

Who is to say the first lifeforms lived for a long time. They may have only lived for microseconds. Who is to say that the first lifeforms did not survive from basic minerals and light? Because predatory animals(like us humans) do not does not mean all lifeforms do.

There is a lot more I could point out but I think the main point, how morality came about, is the driving issue here. To be honest, we really don't know, but it can be shown that how a lifeform behaves to its fellows can dictates whether or not a group of lifeforms can or can not live together.

Note we could find flowers that live in the same flowerbed. Since one flower does not disrupt the others, does that mean the flowers have a social order? That answer would be subjective because we normally doubt that flowers can intentionally interact with each other or with environment.

However, we can find a pack of dogs, herd of sheep, in fact pick any animal that has a tendency to live in a group. Does the animals have a social order? The answer appears to be yes. If one of the group becomes disruptive, the others may begin a process to disassociate with the disruptive animal. We could draw the conclusion that animals have a instinctive name nature for what to be considered moral or immoral to them.

Therefore, it seems that human intelligence is not necessary to determine what is or is not basically moral. Herd animals practice some form of it all the time.

 

[DriftingSand]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

In the simplest form I'm going to attempt to show an order of events (again, in elementary form):

1) There was absolutely nothing. No matter and no thought.
2) From this absolute nothingness **boom** an explosion took place and an entire universe (and universes) **poofed** onto the scene. Still no thought or biological life but lots and lots of mineral-based matter just appeared out of thin air.
3) Gases and matter just floated around the universe for a few billion years (trillion??) when out of the blue **poof** organic life miraculously appeared. Okay ... no such thing as miracles. So by some chaotic mistake, organic life just appeared by pure happenstance. There was no rhyme or reason for all of these events and certainly no intelligent plan.
4) This new organism had an extremely long life. Long enough for it to wait for another organism to appear to mate with and produce other long-living organisms to arrive and start evolving into other forms of organism. Another miracle ... I mean ... another big mistake based on chance. Nobody knows for sure what the first organism ate during that time but it must have been mineral-based food (unless, that is, plant life appeared by shear mistake at the exact same time).
5) At this point there still is no intelligence or moral standard. It's simply survival of the fittest and minute organisms adapting to some phantom "environment." Why it needed to evolve is still unknown. Why would it need to evolve if it had everything it needed to survive in the first place? But enough of these common sense (I mean silly) questions.
6) One day **poof** this bacterial type of organism decided to become a mammal complete with hair, vision, opposing thumbs, a beating heart, complex cells, and a list of other operational "mistakes." Still no moral standard at this point. Just apelike creatures walking around eating fruit that evolved from the original organism's mineral diet.
7) Then, one day, the apelike creature became intelligent and developed a moral standard of right and wrong.

So ... the moral of the story is that chance and lack of morals give way to design, intelligence, and morality.

For me, it makes a lot more logical sense to believe that all things were designed and made by something than to believe that all things were designed and made by nothing. Man reflects a moral standard and a high level of intelligence. As they say ... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Man is the apple of God's eye.

I say up to three I could follow you but 4, there is a problem

You made the assumption that all lifeforms need a mate, however there exist lifeforms that are asexual. Reproduce without a mate.

If the earliest life forms didn't require a mate to reproduce then why the need to "evolve" into an organism that does? Isn't that counterproductive for an organism bent on survival? Isn't it FAR more efficient to be asexual?

Who is to say the first lifeforms lived for a long time. They may have only lived for microseconds. Who is to say that the first lifeforms did not survive from basic minerals and light? Because predatory animals(like us humans) do not does not mean all lifeforms do.

Nobody can actually "say" anything because it's all pure guesswork. It takes a ton of faith to believe that life erupted from non-organic material in the first place.

There is a lot more I could point out but I think the main point, how morality came about, is the driving issue here. To be honest, we really don't know, but it can be shown that how a lifeform behaves to its fellows can dictates whether or not a group of lifeforms can or can not live together.

Thanks for your honesty. At least you don't try to present a case without truly knowing.

Note we could find flowers that live in the same flowerbed. Since one flower does not disrupt the others, does that mean the flowers have a social order? That answer would be subjective because we normally doubt that flowers can intentionally interact with each other or with environment.

Not too sure what point your making or which portion of my post you're addressing. Sorry.

However, we can find a pack of dogs, herd of sheep, in fact pick any animal that has a tendency to live in a group. Does the animals have a social order? The answer appears to be yes. If one of the group becomes disruptive, the others may begin a process to disassociate with the disruptive animal. We could draw the conclusion that animals have a instinctive name nature for what to be considered moral or immoral to them.

I'm not too certain that "packing" together has much to do with morality. It likely has more to do with survival. Dogs run in packs to help each other hunt while lambs hang out together to alert each other of danger.

Therefore, it seems that human intelligence is not necessary to determine what is or is not basically moral. Herd animals practice some form of it all the time.

Not a great analogy. Humans will take a special drive all the way to their local hospital or soup kitchen to volunteer their time to help the sick or needy. That's a moral thing to do that animals aren't capable of planning. By the same token, a criminal can spend a year planning a crime then precisely execute his plan when the time is right. That's an immoral act. There are many more examples.