Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(30-10-2013 11:31 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 11:19 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  You created this thread, you asked the questions, you received answers. Go back and find them, it's not fair to make us do your work for you. Either that or we can be done here and you can go away.

Okay, so I didn't see anything significant in the first place, and you did. Yet you cannot remember what, and you expect me to go find something I never thought was significant in first place!

Just because you don't find it significant doesn't mean it's not an answer or an argument. If you want to have a discussion you have to reply to our posts. You're ridiculous and hypocritical. How about we start with this one, I thought Bucky had a good post.

(28-10-2013 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Morality and empathy evolved in the Great Apes, because it promoted life and survival in groups, (as anyone who took Anthropology 101 knows). Humans are not the only apes who have moral systems, nor even the only mammals that have moral systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Morality does not come from the gods. All religious laws are imported from culture into religions. There is no "absolute" moral law. Even Christians say it's ok to take life, under certain conditions. This moral argument is as old as he hills, and has been debunked countless times. The gods are not the origins of morality, and morality is no argument for the existence of a deity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bonobo-all-us.html
http://www.livescience.com/24800-animals...ality.html



But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 09:56 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
It has long been my contention that morality is an artifact of chemical intelligence, that rather than the abstractions of good and evil, morality once determined such concrete decisions such as left or right.

In a similar vein, I encountered this article today -

Quote:Biological cooperation can occur when two or more individuals — be they single-celled or multicelled units — group together to form a new entity: a new individual or, perhaps, a group of individuals, depending on the perspective of the experimenter. The division of reproductive labor in a multicellular entity requires that cells work together to maximize the reproductive potential of the entity of which they are a part.

To that end, cooperative cells exhibit behaviors that improve the ability of other cells to transmit their genomes, sometimes at the expense of minimizing their own genetic contribution to the next generation. These cells are often called “altruists” in the lab. They may produce or preserve energy resources for the group.

On the other hand, a noncooperative cell — or what is labeled a “defector” in the lab — will move around an ecosystem eating up scarce resources without making any contributions to sustainability. The defector’s “selfish” behavior tends to preserve its own genome for intergenerational transmission at the expense of the group.

Sexually reproducing organisms have capitalized on these two conflicting approaches in a way that benefits the entire organism: Somatic cells act as cooperators and germ cells act as defectors. Multicellularity as we know it might not have been possible without having both the defectors and the cooperators — each type of behavior is necessary.

~from https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/...llularity/

Note how evolutionary considerations can account for the presence - and necessity - of "evil." They can also indicate the "why" of complexity in terms of the diversity of the environment. Which also can answer the question of the OP - it is not a who, it is a what - the island. Adding humans to the equation merely makes it an ecology, a society; the answer still remains a what.

One may discount the above quoted text as merely unsubstantiated "sacred text," if it wasn't for the simple fact that what makes science science and theology woo is the utility of predictive modeling. For instance, I read the first post and predicted douchbag; lo and behold douchebaggery occurred.

Atheism makes no moral claim; as an atheist it is incumbent upon me to construct, maintain, and experiment with my own moral paradigm. Notably, I have yet to feel the "douchebag" labeling has been inaccurate or undeserved.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-10-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Look through this thread and review all the responses. We've seen every answer basically from YES to NO, and all in-between.

Here is the range...one said morals don't matter, one saying that I was not saying anything "we" didn't already know, another - we all think different things, another about self-determination, another that it's stupid circular reasoning...

...right on up towards the other end of the spectrum - one of denial, theories of law, custom, statistics, golden rule, apes, decent life...

...right up to the very extreme - outright hostility, name-calling, and why don't I get lost.

I actually agree with the one saying it was stupid circular reasoning, but I get jumped on, not the atheist who said it. Think!

I'm not laughing and ridiculing. I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

I have twice in this thread welcomed anyone who wants to debate me head-to-head. I would have loved to get into statistics, law and custom, but it would have detracted from the OP. However, this particular debate is clearly finished.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(31-10-2013 08:26 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  I'm not laughing and ridiculing. I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

No, it is reasoned, negotiated and it produces society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-10-2013, 08:39 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Baseless. Now defined as YOU WON'T ADMIT THAT I'M RIGHT!!!¡¡¡¡ Sadcryface2

Why, that's baseless! Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-10-2013, 08:46 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 05:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(31-10-2013 08:26 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Look through this thread and review all the responses. We've seen every answer basically from YES to NO, and all in-between.

Here is the range...one said morals don't matter, one saying that I was not saying anything "we" didn't already know, another - we all think different things, another about self-determination, another that it's stupid circular reasoning...

...right on up towards the other end of the spectrum - one of denial, theories of law, custom, statistics, golden rule, apes, decent life...

...right up to the very extreme - outright hostility, name-calling, and why don't I get lost.

I actually agree with the one saying it was stupid circular reasoning, but I get jumped on, not the atheist who said it. Think!

I'm not laughing and ridiculing. I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

I have twice in this thread welcomed anyone who wants to debate me head-to-head. I would have loved to get into statistics, law and custom, but it would have detracted from the OP. However, this particular debate is clearly finished.


And yet you seem to be unable to address even one. You didn't say you wanted a debate one on one, in the OP. You just posted an irrelevant scenario, which you cannot now justify. You kept moving your goal posts, so you can make it appear you have accomplished something. There was no "debate" because you were totally unable to address even ONE point. Then you declared yourself the winner. How utterly pathetic. Declaring oneself the winner of something, does not a winner make. Jebus no likey cowardly, inept quitters, who obviously couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.
Tell your Babble College you want your tuition for Apologetics 101 back, as they obviously taught you nothing, and next time you try to wade into the deep end, try to cook up a scenario that actually has some relevance to humans, in 2013. In fact you were SO utterly inept, you didn't even recognize the most profound question ever asked about a deity's morality, (Euthyphro's dilemma), which was asked. Saying something is "fundamentally flawed, and produces anarchy" without demonstrating how, and when and where, is a fail. The majority of the Northern European nations are atheists. Do They live in "anarchy" ? No. Any system of public morality based on any religious belief system, (a theocracy), is clearly doomed. As soon as one is set up, any nut case believer who thinks she/he has a better interpretation of the rules of a deity, can come along and say they "know better" how to interpret the mind of the deity, and chaos ensues. Sounds like you would feel more comfortable living in Iran, (or do you plan on being a US "ayatollah" ? )

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
31-10-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Are you still hanging around to lecture us on morality, Hannibal Lecter? I understand. It's clear our morality is wrong because it isn't derived from an arbitrary moral authority. You know - the voice in your head who tells you to eat a dead man's body on Sunday. It's clear our morality is wrong because it isn't derived someone who resides in a "prime" reality - we only have this created reality morality to depend upon, unlike you. Go on. Have a little cup of blood to wash it down. Our morality doesn't have the benefit of the infinite wisdom of an all loving, all knowing god. We, silly us, we just don't understand why the butcher of Jericho had to kill every man woman and child, and all the livestock. We just don't understand because our morality is baseless.

You understand, though, don't you?

You understand why he had to do those things.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(31-10-2013 08:26 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Look through this thread and review all the responses. We've seen every answer basically from YES to NO, and all in-between.

Here is the range...one said morals don't matter, one saying that I was not saying anything "we" didn't already know, another - we all think different things, another about self-determination, another that it's stupid circular reasoning...

...right on up towards the other end of the spectrum - one of denial, theories of law, custom, statistics, golden rule, apes, decent life...

...right up to the very extreme - outright hostility, name-calling, and why don't I get lost.

I actually agree with the one saying it was stupid circular reasoning, but I get jumped on, not the atheist who said it. Think!

I'm not laughing and ridiculing. I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

I have twice in this thread welcomed anyone who wants to debate me head-to-head. I would have loved to get into statistics, law and custom, but it would have detracted from the OP. However, this particular debate is clearly finished.


You are talking to a totally diverse community here - every corner of the world, culture, age, race, gender, and so on.

We have nothing in common but a disbelief in gods.

Obviously you can't expect answers that allow you to lump all atheists into one category.

Personally, I dislike the christian religion because of the lack of morality in the bible, specifically the OT. Many christians I have met lack in empathy. Empathy is the base of morality.

Whether a person has well developed empathy has nothing to do with religion.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(31-10-2013 08:26 AM)Dearthair Wrote:   I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

I have twice in this thread welcomed anyone who wants to debate me head-to-head. I would have loved to get into statistics, law and custom, but it would have detracted from the OP. However, this particular debate is clearly finished.


Ok, so you tried and you failed miserably , now what?

Btw, head-to-head debate accepted. Lets pick a subject.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(31-10-2013 08:26 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  Look through this thread and review all the responses. We've seen every answer basically from YES to NO, and all in-between.

Here is the range...one said morals don't matter, one saying that I was not saying anything "we" didn't already know, another - we all think different things, another about self-determination, another that it's stupid circular reasoning...

...right on up towards the other end of the spectrum - one of denial, theories of law, custom, statistics, golden rule, apes, decent life...

...right up to the very extreme - outright hostility, name-calling, and why don't I get lost.

I actually agree with the one saying it was stupid circular reasoning, but I get jumped on, not the atheist who said it. Think!

I'm not laughing and ridiculing. I am simply trying to make you see yourselves, and the baseless system of right and wrong you try to imagine has any consistency. It is fundamentally flawed, and inherently produces anarchy.

I have twice in this thread welcomed anyone who wants to debate me head-to-head. I would have loved to get into statistics, law and custom, but it would have detracted from the OP. However, this particular debate is clearly finished.

"I asked a group of people some [asinine and incoherent] questions, and they had different responses. Therefore I win!"

Well. That's... special.

In the full retard sense, mind.

"Clearly finished" here meaning, "I am going to abandon all pretense of even beginning to respond to anything", I guess.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: