- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:35) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:35) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:49) Quote (Stu @ April 01 2011,17:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:13) Violence is natural in nature are you trying to defy nature itself or do you think all animals in the animal kingdom are somehow religious? Your whole theory is rather immature and ridiculous supposing somehow religion and violence is connected when it is not, Human nature and violence is connected and it is that same urge that religion sets out to subdue or suppress promoting instead charity, love and gratitude.
As someone who believes in evolution you can have no valid argument against anything that has occured, is occuring or that will occur, as to you it should be easily explained as a natural growth in evolutionary terms and therefore perfectly normal.
So basically you are claiming that those who appreciate that the fact of the evolution of species is explained by natural selection cannot hold moral values?I don't know how much more shallow and moronic a view of that you could take.
As for your wittering about animals, you appear to have no relevant point that I can discern.
Stuart
Stu,Either you believe in Natural selection and Evolution or you don't. If you don't believe in God then Morality is arbitrary and if all is simply evolving with no particular intent or direction then by default all things are in perfect order even if in complete disarray or apparent chaos.
But what is it that you think I believe about natural selection, and what evidence to you have to support that allegation?Gods don't exist, and there is no intent to what happens in the universe, except to the extent that humans and other animals can take actions that have intent behind them. Morality is not arbitrary, it is functional. If you were looking in from outside then ethics might look arbitrary until you could see how they fitted in to the concept of adaptation for survival and reproduction.
We follow, or don't follow, particular principles of conduct which we can think of as absolute morals because when our brains do that the morals can be more effective in the results they produce. I am sure that there are morals which people think of as absolute which are actually entirely neutral to survival and reproduction, but that view is a byproduct of taking the useful morals as absolutes.
Are you keeping up?
Stuart
Stu,You are not accepting what you say you believe in, If Evolution and Natural selection are not headed anywhere in particular and have no conscious intent then it can have no “desire” and hence you speak of survival as an intent but that is not even the actual theory of natural selection.
The theory of Natural Selection only concludes that what is biologically viable will survive. Morality in any form can have no bearing on evolution or Natural Selection and understanding that there is no conscious intent in those theories is paramount in understanding what you are talking about.
Religion teaches survival through a defined Morality but there is no such “Natural” morality as Man is naturally violent and barbaric as functional survival in nature is strong rules the weak. Religion emphasizes strong lift up and support the weak, Religion emphasizes love and Charity.
If you stop misrepresenting the ToE and NS you will soon discover, you would have to come to different conclusions.
Once again you lie about what I have written here. I have never said that natural selection has intent, in fact I have been at pains to state that it does not.As for the rest of your post, it just demonstrates how little you understand about natural history and morality.
Still you adore a murderous pedophile, so I guess our moralities might be expected to differ somewhat.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,16:34) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:35) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:35) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:49) Quote (Stu @ April 01 2011,17:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:13) Violence is natural in nature are you trying to defy nature itself or do you think all animals in the animal kingdom are somehow religious? Your whole theory is rather immature and ridiculous supposing somehow religion and violence is connected when it is not, Human nature and violence is connected and it is that same urge that religion sets out to subdue or suppress promoting instead charity, love and gratitude.
As someone who believes in evolution you can have no valid argument against anything that has occured, is occuring or that will occur, as to you it should be easily explained as a natural growth in evolutionary terms and therefore perfectly normal.
So basically you are claiming that those who appreciate that the fact of the evolution of species is explained by natural selection cannot hold moral values?I don't know how much more shallow and moronic a view of that you could take.
As for your wittering about animals, you appear to have no relevant point that I can discern.
Stuart
Stu,Either you believe in Natural selection and Evolution or you don't. If you don't believe in God then Morality is arbitrary and if all is simply evolving with no particular intent or direction then by default all things are in perfect order even if in complete disarray or apparent chaos.
But what is it that you think I believe about natural selection, and what evidence to you have to support that allegation?Gods don't exist, and there is no intent to what happens in the universe, except to the extent that humans and other animals can take actions that have intent behind them. Morality is not arbitrary, it is functional. If you were looking in from outside then ethics might look arbitrary until you could see how they fitted in to the concept of adaptation for survival and reproduction.
We follow, or don't follow, particular principles of conduct which we can think of as absolute morals because when our brains do that the morals can be more effective in the results they produce. I am sure that there are morals which people think of as absolute which are actually entirely neutral to survival and reproduction, but that view is a byproduct of taking the useful morals as absolutes.
Are you keeping up?
Stuart
Stu,You are not accepting what you say you believe in, If Evolution and Natural selection are not headed anywhere in particular and have no conscious intent then it can have no “desire” and hence you speak of survival as an intent but that is not even the actual theory of natural selection.
The theory of Natural Selection only concludes that what is biologically viable will survive. Morality in any form can have no bearing on evolution or Natural Selection and understanding that there is no conscious intent in those theories is paramount in understanding what you are talking about.
Religion teaches survival through a defined Morality but there is no such “Natural” morality as Man is naturally violent and barbaric as functional survival in nature is strong rules the weak. Religion emphasizes strong lift up and support the weak, Religion emphasizes love and Charity.
If you stop misrepresenting the ToE and NS you will soon discover, you would have to come to different conclusions.
Once again you lie about what I have written here. I have never said that natural selection has intent, in fact I have been at pains to state that it does not.As for the rest of your post, it just demonstrates how little you understand about natural history and morality.
Still you adore a murderous pedophile, so I guess our moralities might be expected to differ somewhat.
Stuart
Natural history and Morality? Do tell.Your completely oblivious if you think there has been any sort of evolution in the morality of mankind the only morality in man comes from his or her acceptance and belief in God.
Lacking a moral standard does not make one moral by default as you seem to think it does. Not stealing doesn't doesn't mean a person condemns stealing as immoral and not killing is not a statement against killing the innocent.
No Stu, No morality by default
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 03 2011,03:27) Natural history and Morality? Do tell. Your completely oblivious if you think there has been any sort of evolution in the morality of mankind the only morality in man comes from his or her acceptance and belief in God.
Lacking a moral standard does not make one moral by default as you seem to think it does. Not stealing doesn't doesn't mean a person condemns stealing as immoral and not killing is not a statement against killing the innocent.
No Stu, No morality by default
Who lacks a moral standard? There is a moral standard written in my genes and it is present in the culture of my upbringing. It got written in my genes by the history of survival of my ancestors who followed those codes.You just assert the god part. No god is necessary to completely explain ethics, and actually inserting the word god adds nothing to an already complete explanation for the origins of ethics.
You seem to think that if you do not state explicitly your ethics then you are not “moral”. Do you have a brain to engage on this? If so, when will you be starting to think?
As usual you have nothing of any meaning to say about this.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 03 2011,08:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 03 2011,03:27) Natural history and Morality? Do tell. Your completely oblivious if you think there has been any sort of evolution in the morality of mankind the only morality in man comes from his or her acceptance and belief in God.
Lacking a moral standard does not make one moral by default as you seem to think it does. Not stealing doesn't doesn't mean a person condemns stealing as immoral and not killing is not a statement against killing the innocent.
No Stu, No morality by default
Who lacks a moral standard? There is a moral standard written in my genes and it is present in the culture of my upbringing. It got written in my genes by the history of survival of my ancestors who followed those codes.You just assert the god part. No god is necessary to completely explain ethics, and actually inserting the word god adds nothing to an already complete explanation for the origins of ethics.
You seem to think that if you do not state explicitly your ethics then you are not “moral”. Do you have a brain to engage on this? If so, when will you be starting to think?
As usual you have nothing of any meaning to say about this.
Stuart
Once again Stu you assert “intent” assuming that there is a genetic evolution towards civility and that is a false assumption.You are the kind of person who like many others will explain entropy as a tendency towards disorder when it is infact a condition of heat dissipation. Your views will only be taking serious by me when you actually understand what you are saying.
You keep assuming that evolution or NS have anything at all to do with “progress” and that could not be possible without intent. Not even survival itself is inherently progressive.
Think deeper and free yourself
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,05:59) Who lacks a moral standard? There is a moral standard written in my genes and it is present in the culture of my upbringing. It got written in my genes by the history of survival of my ancestors who followed those codes. You just assert the god part. No god is necessary to completely explain ethics, and actually inserting the word god adds nothing to an already complete explanation for the origins of ethics.
You seem to think that if you do not state explicitly your ethics then you are not “moral”. Do you have a brain to engage on this? If so, when will you be starting to think?
As usual you have nothing of any meaning to say about this.
Stuart[/quote]
Once again Stu you assert “intent” assuming that there is a genetic evolution towards civility and that is a false assumption.You are the kind of person who like many others will explain entropy as a tendency towards disorder when it is infact a condition of heat dissipation. Your views will only be taking serious by me when you actually understand what you are saying.
You keep assuming that evolution or NS have anything at all to do with “progress” and that could not be possible without intent. Not even survival itself is inherently progressive.
Think deeper and free yourself
I refer you, and any readers of this thread to the other thread about your debating tactics in which we discuss the fact that when you have been shown to be out of your depth you change the subject.In this case you asked about moral standards and I wrote about moral standards. Now you are wittering on about civility and accusing me of making assumptions as if we were talking about civility. Civility is not morality. Either repost where I made “assumptions” about “evolution towards civility” or RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
THEN, please repost where I ever said “entropy [is] a tendency towards disorder”. If you cannot, then RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
And finally, please repost where I ever claimed that natural selection is about progress. If you cannot, the RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
That is if you have any moral standards.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,18:06) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,05:59) Who lacks a moral standard? There is a moral standard written in my genes and it is present in the culture of my upbringing. It got written in my genes by the history of survival of my ancestors who followed those codes. You just assert the god part. No god is necessary to completely explain ethics, and actually inserting the word god adds nothing to an already complete explanation for the origins of ethics.
You seem to think that if you do not state explicitly your ethics then you are not “moral”. Do you have a brain to engage on this? If so, when will you be starting to think?
As usual you have nothing of any meaning to say about this.
Stuart
Once again Stu you assert “intent” assuming that there is a genetic evolution towards civility and that is a false assumption.You are the kind of person who like many others will explain entropy as a tendency towards disorder when it is infact a condition of heat dissipation. Your views will only be taking serious by me when you actually understand what you are saying.
You keep assuming that evolution or NS have anything at all to do with “progress” and that could not be possible without intent. Not even survival itself is inherently progressive.
Think deeper and free yourself[/quote]
I refer you, and any readers of this thread to the other thread about your debating tactics in which we discuss the fact that when you have been shown to be out of your depth you change the subject.In this case you asked about moral standards and I wrote about moral standards. Now you are wittering on about civility and accusing me of making assumptions as if we were talking about civility. Civility is not morality. Either repost where I made “assumptions” about “evolution towards civility” or RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
THEN, please repost where I ever said “entropy [is] a tendency towards disorder”. If you cannot, then RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
And finally, please repost where I ever claimed that natural selection is about progress. If you cannot, the RETRACT and APOLOGISE.
That is if you have any moral standards.
Stuart
Quote There is a moral standard written in my genes and it is present in the culture of my upbringing. It got written in my genes by the history of survival of my ancestors who followed those codes. This is a false statement and it does suppose that there is a Moral progression. Survival and morality are not connected or ingrained.
It is you that use silly tactics and try to get away with them. You have always suggested that evolution is “progressive” to deny that would be for you to lie or at the least be ill informed of your own belief.
If you do not believe that evolution is progressive then you cannot assume that any condition is any less or more evolved.
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 04 2011,22:49) Stu,
I am in awe of your patience.Tim
If you are in awe of his patience then you obviously disregard the fact that he doesn't understand what he believes, which leads me to think you may also not know exactly what it is you believe.Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:45) This is a false statement and it does suppose that there is a Moral progression. Survival and morality are not connected or ingrained. It is you that use silly tactics and try to get away with them. You have always suggested that evolution is “progressive” to deny that would be for you to lie or at the least be ill informed of your own belief.
If you do not believe that evolution is progressive then you cannot assume that any condition is any less or more evolved.
Survival and morality, and especially reproductive success and morality could not be more closely connected. Some of our strongest feelings of conscience are associated with murder and sex.What is my “silly tactic” here? Is it to NOT say what you want to accuse me of saying?
Regarding your comment to Tim, Tim has always been able to represent fairly what I have posted, so I would say from my point of view he has the intelligence and sophistication to understand what I post. On the other hand you don't have a clue about what I believe, you don't seem to be able to repost any evidence for what you claim I believe, and you have not apologised for misrepresenting me.
Let us know when you have learned enough to carry on an intelligent discussion on the question of morals, if that is your interest. At the moment you don't even appear able to articulate any kind of explanation for why humans have any such thing as ethics, let alone explain clearly what you believe yourself.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:47) Quote (TimothyVI @ April 04 2011,22:49) Stu,
I am in awe of your patience.Tim
If you are in awe of his patience then you obviously disregard the fact that he doesn't understand what he believes, which leads me to think you may also not know exactly what it is you believe.
Hi Bod,Stu patiently continues to present his beliefs over and over and over again. How can that mean that he does not understand what he believes?
And how on earth would disregarding that false claim indicate that I do not know exactly what it is that I believe?That was one of your sillier posts Bod, you must have been tired.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 07 2011,01:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:47) Quote (TimothyVI @ April 04 2011,22:49) Stu,
I am in awe of your patience.Tim
If you are in awe of his patience then you obviously disregard the fact that he doesn't understand what he believes, which leads me to think you may also not know exactly what it is you believe.
Hi Bod,Stu patiently continues to present his beliefs over and over and over again. How can that mean that he does not understand what he believes?
And how on earth would disregarding that false claim indicate that I do not know exactly what it is that I believe?That was one of your sillier posts Bod, you must have been tired.
Tim
Tim,Stu, keeps insisting that there is some sort of progressive evolution and yet he believes that evolution is not intentional in any way.
Stu seems to believe that there is some need for morality and yet he gives no reason for such a need, I have said to be truly atheist would include being completely Amoral or at least mean to an atheist that all morality is completely arbitrary.
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 07 2011,01:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:47) Quote (TimothyVI @ April 04 2011,22:49) Stu,
I am in awe of your patience.Tim
If you are in awe of his patience then you obviously disregard the fact that he doesn't understand what he believes, which leads me to think you may also not know exactly what it is you believe.
Hi Bod,Stu patiently continues to present his beliefs over and over and over again. How can that mean that he does not understand what he believes?
And how on earth would disregarding that false claim indicate that I do not know exactly what it is that I believe?That was one of your sillier posts Bod, you must have been tired.
Tim
Now it is your patience in which I must be in awe.Of.
Arrgh, it's just so hard not to end sentences prepositions nowdays with.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
