YIELD ANONY YIELD

Things need not get any bloodier now....

Atheists call for air support, swat and some tactical support, someone take out mr. Anony before he detonates the nuke!

vedaxcool: Atheists call for air support, swat and some tactical support, someone take out mr. Anony before he detonates the nuke!

Trolololo

Logicboy03:


Lol....Only a=someone like you can not recognized that you lost this argument long ago. Claiming victory for me is an understatement. The moment you claimed that God is the standard of morality, you failed because even you (and all christians) do not understand god's word. You dont understand the teaching of hell, you are not even agreed on who god is (Trinity Vs Human Jesus). Worst of all, you are a protestant. A breakaway from the original church- the Roman Catholic church. Catholics dont even consider you as a "real" christian.

Yet, god is the standard for morality.



You also lost the moment you denied the evolutionary basis of morality. Epic fail. You are arguing against empirical science.







You sidestepped the links that debunked you and then went to remix the one link that you thought was less scientific? Your dodging skills are exemplary but they wont save you today!


Here is a quote from the 3rd link that clearly explains the evolutionary basis for morality (descriptive ethics)

Descriptive Evolutionary Ethics: appeals to evolutionary theory in the scientific explanation of the [size=18pt]origins[/size] of certain human capacities, tendencies, or patterns of thought, feeling and behavior. For example: the appeal to natural selection pressures in the distant past to explain the evolution of a capacity for normative guidance, or more specifically the [size=18pt]origins of our sense of fairness [/size]or our resentment of cheaters


Now, you were trying to make the failed case that the discussion of evolution and morality doesnt start from the origin of morality or that it is different from the evolutionary basis of morality. You fail because the evolution of morality starts from the need of a moral structure/behaviours or instincts to survive.


The other links are scientific journals which only contain the abstracts/summary (you'd have to pay for most full pdf scientific journals). The very fact that a google search will give you thousands of results on this area actaully shows your ignorance of empirical research on this topic.


You can keep on living in denial.

Here is a link to an article on a science magazine that attacks your position and destroys it completely;


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13696-evolution-myths-accepting-evolution-undermines-morality.html






I didnt commit the genetic fallacy. I asked you if you were born into the right religion (Christianity)? How is that a fallacy?


Still you are sidestepping the question here.


Are you still claiming that 64% of Japanese who are atheists are following a meaningless morality while they live in the 2nd most peaceful country in the world?

You still have not satisfied the work cut out for you. You are equating "origin" to "basis" those two do not even come near meaning the same thing.

I also read your link in the new scientist magazine and that one talks about something else entirely. It argues that accepting the theory of evolution does not undermine morals. It does not even come near proposing your so-called "evolutionary basis for morality".

So please logicboy, stop wasting our time and provide us with your "evolutionary basis for morality" Let me make it simple for you here.

Classify the following into good and evil based on evolution and explain why:

1 Adultery
2 Honesty
3 Rape
4 Gratitude
5 Murder
6 Greed
7 Selfishness
8 Generousity
9 Pedophilia
10 Cocaine abuse

I am not interested in "how" but "why". For instance, telling me the origin of how we came to detest rape will get you nowhere. What you have to do is tell me, "Evolution has x characteristics and based on that, rape is either good or evil depending on how it relates to x. That is what it means to provide a basis for morality. Where you fail to do this, please feel free to shout debunked some more

musKeeto:
And with this we come back to weigraf's assertion that things aren't good of themselves, but things are good because God determines they are good..

Man's morality/conscience is by default evil, so man has no basis to determine what's right or wrong without God. Without God, man is incapable of making moral decisions.

I hope I got you right.

If I did, it then follows which God?

God, if he exists, remains abstract. Even the Bible acknowledges this - my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts.

Christianity today is based on subjective interpretations of what this incomprehensible God permits and what he doesn't. If God's words were clearly communicated by God(therefore objective), there wouldn't be any divisions within the church. Most Christians would take a similar stance on most issues e.g homosexuality, abortion e.t.c...

How then, if you claim God is morality, would one tell what is right from wrong? As a theist, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? As a Christian, should your sense of right/wrong be similar to other Christians?

You didn't quite get me right. I don't quite know how you think. How did you arrive at "God is morality" from "God is the standard for morality"? That's like saying "the clock is time" and "the ruler is length".

Now let's move on to the main part of your question which is that Christians today interpret God's word in many different ways. I would have you note that multiple interpretations of a text doesn't void it in any way. If you recall earlier in the thread, I put before you guys the life and character of Christ as the standard for morality.

If God was ever abstract, Christ has made Him manifest. No one has any excuse.

thehomer:

What don't you understand about my question? I'm simply wondering if you are concluding that God is good based on some other arguments or if the starting point of your argument is that God is good so some things should follow from this assumption.

It is a foundational premise.

Anony, you don finish today!

Mr_Anony:
You didn't quite get me right. I don't quite know how you think. How did you arrive at "God is morality" from "God is the standard for morality"? That's like saying "the clock is time" and "the ruler is length".

In your own words...

Mr_Anony:
Morality is discriminating between good and evil. God's nature is good. Evil is a deviation from God's nature.

How can there be a deviation if there's no standard by which to compare it? In your case, you say God is good that good's his nature.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, this question assumes that there is a good separate from God. There isn't.

Effectively, you're the one saying THE CLOCK'S TIME, and the TIME'S CLOCK. There's no separation. Simple.

Mr_Anony:
Now let's move on to the main part of your question which is that Christians today interpret God's word in many different ways. I would have you note that multiple interpretations of a text doesn't void it in any way. If you recall earlier in the thread, I put before you guys the life and character of Christ as the standard for morality.If God was ever abstract, Christ has made Him manifest. No one has any excuse.

Text in red: Wouldn't that apply to a text that's written and authored by humans? Should these subjective interpretations also be manifest where the text's supposedly written by a divine creator, one who seeks good, one who wishes to have a personal relationship with each individual?

Logicboy03:


Trolololo

I don't want to do this

Logo-church

Logic boy high priest of troll
All hail troll

Congregation shouts

Troll troll! troll troll

Logic High priest of troll
Trolling for atheism

Trolling for christianity


Trolling for Islam


trolololololololo

Congregation

Trolololololololo


Priest of troll
Hey men

Hey men

Mr_Anony:
It is a foundational premise.

Okay. Now why should it be accepted as true? I'm assuming that we're talking about the Christian God of the Bible here.

I ask because if as you say morality is the ability to discriminate between good and evil (and perform the good acts), then based on what is in the Bible about that God's actions, I don't see how his nature can be said to be good.

Mr_Anony:
You still have not satisfied the work cut out for you. You are equating "origin" to "basis" those two do not even come near meaning the same thing.

Epic fail in semantics! You want to play a fast game here with semantics but you fail!! The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below.

I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality. (ehem, so you have agreed with science that the origin of our morality is from an evolutionary basis- your box is getting smaller)


But let us focus on "basis" so that you will not have any chance to escape or twist;

Definition;

ba·sis/ˈbāsis/
Noun:
The underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process.


Note- foundation

Many of our instincts are based on our survival. We make decisions and take many actions based on our primal or evolutionary instincts to survive. Morality based on survival. Simple and clear.

Mr_Anony:
I also read your link in the new scientist magazine and that one talks about something else entirely. It argues that accepting the theory of evolution does not undermine morals. It does not even come near proposing your so-called "evolutionary basis for morality".

See this guy? You are now lying and ignoring that the article clearly mentions the origin and gives an evolutionary basis for morality (natural selection favouring altruism and the less selfish).

Here is the quote again from the sceince magaine;

In fact, there is growing evidence that we have an innate moral sense - that morality is something that evolved, in other words. This may seem surprising to those for whom the phrase "survival of the fittest" conjures up images of lions ripping each other to shreds and stags clashing antlers. But "the fittest" can mean the cleverest, the sneakiest, the best camouflaged, the least aggressive, the most attractive - or the least selfish.

Natural selection can favour altruism and fair play in certain circumstances. Behaviours such as loyalty to kin, intolerance of theft and punishment of cheats - [size=18pt]the roots of morality [/size]- can be seen in many of our primate cousins.

Mr_Anony:
So please logicboy, stop wasting our time and provide us with your "evolutionary basis for morality" Let me make it simple for you here.

Shut up. I have dne that a million times but you reject it

Mr_Anony:
Classify the following into good and evil based on evolution and explain why:

1 Adultery
2 Honesty
3 Rape
4 Gratitude
5 Murder
6 Greed
7 Selfishness
8 Generousity
9 Pedophilia
10 Cocaine abuse

I am not going to waste my time with your foolish question because if I asked you this same question to give me answers from the bible, you would start asking me to give a concise definition of each of the terms. Example- what is murder? Is the isrealites killing the amakelites murder?

I have already explained how evolution works in terms of morality and how we use reasoning to hone our primal instincts. I used examples of murder and drug abuse etc

For you to ask the above question highlights your willful ignorance to accept facts

Mr_Anony:
I am not interested in "how" but "why". For instance, telling me the origin of how we came to detest rape will get you nowhere. What you have to do is tell me, "Evolution has x characteristics and based on that, rape is either good or evil depending on how it relates to x. That is what it means to provide a basis for morality. Where you fail to do this, please feel free to shout debunked some more

When one has a hammer every object resembles a nail. Anony can only see morality through the prism of religion but morality existed before religion.


Just because you use a crazy system of God xteristics are X therefore rape is bad because it is against X, doesnt mean that evolution works that way.


Why is rape bad?

-Infection/bruises to the victim (survival) (logical deduction)
-Depression of the victim (survival) (logical deducction)
-No reciprocal value (would the rapist love to be molested) (social evolutionary reason + logical deduction)
-Anger to the kin of the victim (logical deduction)


Wouldnt this be a better reason combining evolution and reasoning rather than saying "rape is bad because it is against god"?


The "how" answer above seerves as a foundation for the "why" answer

mazaje:
Christians. . .Any body that comes out and issues such injunctions will NOT be considered as a good person by christians living today. . .So how is your god's nature good when we have him issuing things that christians today consider bad and evil. . .

Good, but then what you are not paying attention to a lot of contextual issues here. We could delve into that and explain old testament law in depth but then we'll be moving on a far tangent (we can tackle that another day if you like).
For example, in the old testament, God allows divorce but divorce is evil as far as God is concerned. When Jesus is asked about this, He says; "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

musKeeto:
In your own words...

How can there be a deviation if there's no standard by which to compare it? In your case, you say God is good that good's his nature.


Effectively, you're the one saying THE CLOCK'S TIME, and the TIME'S CLOCK. There's no separation. Simple.

A ruler measures length and it is long by nature but that does not translate into a "length is a ruler"

Text in red: Wouldn't that apply to a text that's written and authored by humans? Should these subjective interpretations also be manifest where the text's supposedly written by a divine creator, one who seeks good, one who wishes to have a personal relationship with each individual?

Would you rather that God took away your free choice and forced you to interpret his word in one particular way and one particular way only?

thehomer:

Okay. Now why should it be accepted as true? I'm assuming that we're talking about the Christian God of the Bible here.

I ask because if as you say morality is the ability to discriminate between good and evil (and perform the good acts), then based on what is in the Bible about that God's actions, I don't see how his nature can be said to be good.

Why should it be accepted as true? The same way you think it is true that you exist. How do you know for sure that your senses are not deceiving you and your whole world is not one big illusion? You just accept it as a given foundational premise that your senses are working fine and then build your argument from there.

As for the second part of your argument, all you have done basically is say: "I don't think x is good, therefore it is not good". That my friend is a non-argument.

Logicboy03:

Epic fail in semantics! You want to play a fast game here with semantics but you fail!! The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below.

I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality. (ehem, so you have agreed with science that the origin of our morality is from an evolutionary basis- your box is getting smaller)

Lol, so 'origin' and 'basis' have now become the same thing? Wow, this must be logicboy's new invention
Also, stop putting words in my mouth and into the mouth of 'science', reminding you that there is a difference between "origin" and "basis" does not suddenly translate into that I agree with your "origin" I have clearly maintained that evolution is not the origin of anything. All evolution explains is changes over time.

But let us focus on "basis" so that you will not have any chance to escape or twist;

Definition;

ba·sis/ˈbāsis/
Noun:
The underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process.


Note- foundation

Many of our instincts are based on our survival. We make decisions and take many actions based on our primal or evolutionary instincts to survive. Morality based on survival. Simple and clear.

Equivocation fallacy. There is a difference between a historical foundation (i.e. how something started) and a conceptual foundation (i.e. the deciding factor of a phenomenon)

See this guy? You are now lying and ignoring that the article clearly mentions the origin and gives an evolutionary basis for morality (natural selection favouring altruism and the less selfish).

Here is the quote again from the sceince magaine;

Again another equivocation fallacy, "roots" does not equal "basis"
Let me give you a little analogy: Assuming we were arguing about how to decide length and I told you that the metric scale is the objective basis by which we can discriminate between lengths, you say you don't believe in the metric scale so I ask you to provide your basis for length. Telling me your version of A Brief History of Length and a theory of how we came to have the concept of length counts for nothing when it comes to being an objective standard for discriminating lengths. To now turnaround and say that this historical changes in how people view length is the basis for length is absolutely ludicrous.
You are yet to provide this "evolutionary basis for morality" of yours.

Shut up. I have dne that a million times but you reject it

No you haven't

I am not going to waste my time with your foolish question because if I asked you this same question to give me answers from the bible, you would start asking me to give a concise definition of each of the terms. Example- what is murder? Is the isrealites killing the amakelites murder?

Lol, the reason you don't want to is because evolution is not the basis for anything. Evolution can not tell anyone what they ought or ought not to do. Evolution is merely change.

I have already explained how evolution works in terms of morality and how we use reasoning to hone our primal instincts. I used examples of murder and drug abuse etc

For you to ask the above question highlights your willful ignorance to accept facts

As I have said earlier, Your 'explanation does not even come anywhere close to explaining a basis for morality.

When one has a hammer every object resembles a nail. Anony can only see morality through the prism of religion but morality existed before religion.

ad hominen

Just because you use a crazy system of God xteristics are X therefore rape is bad because it is against X, doesnt mean that evolution works that way.

If it it doesn't work that way, then it is not in any way an objective basis for morality. If it was, It will be able to consistently say if X is good or bad based on a certain standard parameter.

Why is rape bad?

-Infection/bruises to the victim (survival) (logical deduction)
-Depression of the victim (survival) (logical deducction)
-No reciprocal value (would the rapist love to be molested) (social evolutionary reason + logical deduction)
-Anger to the kin of the victim (logical deduction)

So you argue here that rape is objectively evil and the reasons you give are survival (note that you have now given evolution a will in the sense that you are insinuating that it wants organisms to survive).
You see, based on survival, your argument isn't really sound because, nearly every other animal has 'evolved' in a way that the males mount the females by force and without consent. Did they evolve wrong?
For if survival is the watchword, then sex in whatever form it appears and as many times as possible with as many partners as possible should be the greatest good because more sex = more members of the species.

Wouldnt this be a better reason combining evolution and reasoning rather than saying "rape is bad because it is against god"?

Here you separate between evolution and reason, Did reasoning not evolve?

The "how" answer above seerves as a foundation for the "why" answer

No it doesn't even come close.

I'll be off for sometime (about a couple of weeks, I've got a presentation coming up) please feel free to give your replies and I'll give them a look see.

Mr_Anony:
Good, but then what you are not paying attention to a lot of contextual issues here. We could delve into that and explain old testament law in depth but then we'll be moving on a far tangent (we can tackle that another day if you like).
For example, in the old testament, God allows divorce but divorce is evil as far as God is concerned. When Jesus is asked about this, He says; "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

And slavery was good because?. . . .By the way divorce is NOT a bad thing in many parts of the world today(this goes back to my definition of morality as having everything to do with point in history). . .It is actually healthy and a good thing in marriages that are life threatning. . .Why was your good good champoining slavery which christians today consider to be a bad thing since his nature is all good as you claim?. . .

^^^^

Ah, Anony!


This is why you will alway be my favourite christian, here. You never give up even though, you have no chance and have lost. Even Jesus gave up on the cross.

Allow me to rebutt your argument in my next comment

Mr_Anony:
Lol, so 'origin' and 'basis' have now become the same thing? Wow, this must be logicboy's new invention
Also, stop putting words in my mouth and into the mouth of 'science', reminding you that there is a difference between "origin" and "basis" does not suddenly translate into that I agree with your "origin" I have clearly maintained that evolution is not the origin of anything. All evolution explains is changes over time.

Who said that they mean the same thing? See how you lie to cover up your inefficiencies? My exact statement was

"The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below.
I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality"


Does that mean that I said that they mean the same thing or that the origin could also be the basis? It would be like saying a nike sneakers could be a jogging footwear and a causual footwear. Does that mean that I said that jogging footwear and casual sneakers are the same?



Now evolution is both the basis and origin of our morality. You have tried to use semantics to escape. Our morality starts with evolution and morality works with our evolution.


You were shown a scientific article that talks about evolution being the roots of our fairness. You couldnt argue against it and now you are trying to use sematics to fight against the word "basis"

Here is a scientific journal using the word "basis"- Morality having a biological basis
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1517/819.short


Here is a science article talking about the evolutionary basis of morality (yes it uses the word "basis"
http://io9.com/5723024/the-evolutionary-basis-for-morality-might-be-completely-disgusting


Are you now arguing against science? Is there an evolutionary basis for morality? Are the origins of our morality from evolution?

What is now your argument?

Mr_Anony:
Equivocation fallacy. There is a difference between a historical foundation (i.e. how something started) and a conceptual foundation (i.e. the deciding factor of a phenomenon)

Lol....unfortunately for you, I am also talking about a conceptual foundation for morality- soemthing beneficial to the survival of an oragnism.


Wow, your fails are becoming epic.

Mr_Anony:
Again another equivocation fallacy, "roots" does not equal "basis"
Let me give you a little analogy: Assuming we were arguing about how to decide length and I told you that the metric scale is the objective basis by which we can discriminate between lengths, you say you don't believe in the metric scale so I ask you to provide your basis for length. Telling me your version of A Brief History of Length and a theory of how we came to have the concept of length counts for nothing when it comes to being an objective standard for discriminating lengths. To now turnaround and say that this historical changes in how people view length is the basis for length is absolutely ludicrous.
You are yet to provide this "evolutionary basis for morality" of yours.

Yawn. Who said "roots" equal "basis"? Try harder. You cant shift this argument with semantics and straw men.

Your analogy fails because,

1) I gave a solid and factual basis for morality (from survival). You didnt. You claimed "god" but god is subjective. Bring any 2 christians, even twins to describe god or the bible and you will get two versions.

2) I didnt give you a history of evolution. I explained how our morality works with evolution- how we base many decisions on our survival.


Furthermore, on the subjectivity of god, can you explain how god can be an objective standard when the interpretation of the bible is open to many versions and God himself is unknowable?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, the reason you don't want to is because evolution is not the basis for anything. Evolution can not tell anyone what they ought or ought not to do. Evolution is merely change.

Evolution is merely change? Wow. This is the problem right here. You dont undertand evolution and you dont want to accept it. How are you going to understand the evolutionary basis of morality?

Evolution is a theory. Evolution is much more than change. The theory of evolution contains many concepts like adaptation, natural selection, mutataions, variations etc.


Loling at your ignorance.

Mr_Anony:
As I have said earlier, Your 'explanation does not even come anywhere close to explaining a basis for morality.

I make explanations and you just shoud that it doesnt explain what it explains. Cool.

Mr_Anony:
If it it doesn't work that way, then it is not in any way an objective basis for morality. If it was, It will be able to consistently say if X is good or bad based on a certain standard parameter.

Nothing in this world works like that.

"God is X and so anything that goes against X is immoral"


Your god has no definition. Yaweh has no objective definition in christianity. Christianity has no objective definition itself.


You are just putting up imaginary rules to claim victory.

Mr_Anony:
So you argue here that rape is objectively evil and the reasons you give are survival (note that you have now given evolution a will in the sense that you are insinuating that it wants organisms to survive).
You see, based on survival, your argument isn't really sound because, nearly every other animal has 'evolved' in a way that the males mount the females by force and without consent. Did they evolve wrong?
For if survival is the watchword, then sex in whatever form it appears and as many times as possible with as many partners as possible should be the greatest good because more sex = more members of the species.

1) Evolution doesnt have a will

2) I never insinuated that evolution wants organisms to survive. You are talking nonsense. Natural selection- only the fittest survive

3) Consent doesnt apply to animals. Animals cant give consent. Consent is a human idea resulting from human reasoning that is only applicaple to humans.

4) Creating offsprings is good but there are natural limits. A mother can only raise a certain amount of offsprings. The greatest good can not be having overpopulation. Furthermore, we have reasoning.

Mr_Anony:
Here you separate between evolution and reason, Did reasoning not evolve?

Wrong


I only separate our basic evolutionary instincts/morality from reasoning with our evolved brain.

We are different from animals in the sense that we have the ability to bypass our evolutionary instincts with the help of a brain capable of logic and reasoning.

^^^
You've told him all this several times already, yet you're still patient? I envy you...
It's now looking like trolling but it's probably not. He's programmed to blindly follow imaginary sky tyrant while thinking that somehow makes it objective to boot.

@anony, good lucking with your project

wiegraf: ^^^
You've told him all this several times already, yet you're still patient? I envy you...
It's now looking like trolling but it's probably not. He's programmed to blindly follow imaginary sky tyrant while thinking that somehow makes it objective to boot.

@anony, good lucking with your project

Lol...I know....the longer this goes on, the more his credibility sinks lower.


I have bookmarked this thread for evidence of Anonyism

Mr_Anony:
Why should it be accepted as true? The same way you think it is true that you exist. How do you know for sure that your senses are not deceiving you and your whole world is not one big illusion? You just accept it as a given foundational premise that your senses are working fine and then build your argument from there.

In other words, you're saying it is axiomatic by comparing it to my consciousness. The problem of course is that for me to think that I exist, I have to exist but for me to think that some other entity has a certain attribute rather than another possible attribute, I'll need some external input to carry out that assessment. Thus, your analogy fails.

Mr_Anony:
As for the second part of your argument, all you have done basically is say: "I don't think x is good, therefore it is not good". That my friend is a non-argument.

No, what I've done is to say that I don't think God is good because of what he is said to have done therefore God is not good. If you would like me to show you what he is said to have done for you to decide on whether or not they're good, you only need to ask.

Now I have cause to wonder how you think

Mr_Anony:
A ruler measures length and it is long by nature but that does not translate into a "length is a ruler"

How does this answer my question? Indeed, length is not a ruler. Allow me to re-quote your earlier post.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, this question assumes that there is a good separate from God. There isn't.

If there's no good separate from GOD AND anything which deviates from GOD's evil.... then it'll be right to say that what's being MEASURED has become the measurement. If this sounds crazy to you, then you need to check yourself.

Again, Weigraf was right. You believe that things are good, because GOD says they are( in other words, because they do not deviate from GOD). It's like giving 'length' a voice and person, and hearing it say 5cm is 2km. NOW it won't matter what mode of measurement any human on the surface of the planet decides to use, what would matter is that 'length' has said it's 2km.

Mr_Anony:
Would you rather that God took away your free choice and forced you to interpret his word in one particular way and one particular way only?

We've been down this road before and I remember the Fashola's Lagos traffic law example I gave you.

I'd give another one.
You walk into a factory compound and see a sign 'Do not turn on the taps'. This statement is as clear as light. In a normal scenario, no taps 'should' be turned on. It doesn't take away 'free choice' for anyone could still turn on a tap if they choose to.

Let's take for example, 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL', one of the ten commandments in the Bible.The same God who commands this also sanctions the genocidal killing of enemy tribes in the Old Testament. 'THOU shalt not kill' probably meant 'THOU SHALT not kill your fellow Isrealites'... But it's all good, cos GOD is GOOD.

Logicboy03:


Who said that they mean the same thing? See how you lie to cover up your inefficiencies? My exact statement was

"The origin of something can also the basis of that thing. This is explained below.
I use "origin" and "basis" interchangeably because evolution is both the origin and the fundamental basis of our morality"


Does that mean that I said that they mean the same thing or that the origin could also be the basis? It would be like saying a nike sneakers could be a jogging footwear and a causual footwear. Does that mean that I said that jogging footwear and casual sneakers are the same?



Now evolution is both the basis and origin of our morality. You have tried to use semantics to escape. Our morality starts with evolution and morality works with our evolution.


You were shown a scientific article that talks about evolution being the roots of our fairness. You couldnt argue against it and now you are trying to use sematics to fight against the word "basis"

Here is a scientific journal using the word "basis"- Morality having a biological basis
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1517/819.short


Here is a science article talking about the evolutionary basis of morality (yes it uses the word "basis"
http://io9.com/5723024/the-evolutionary-basis-for-morality-might-be-completely-disgusting


Are you now arguing against science? Is there an evolutionary basis for morality? Are the origins of our morality from evolution?

What is now your argument?





Lol....unfortunately for you, I am also talking about a conceptual foundation for morality- soemthing beneficial to the survival of an oragnism.


Wow, your fails are becoming epic.






Yawn. Who said "roots" equal "basis"? Try harder. You cant shift this argument with semantics and straw men.

Your analogy fails because,

1) I gave a solid and factual basis for morality (from survival). You didnt. You claimed "god" but god is subjective. Bring any 2 christians, even twins to describe god or the bible and you will get two versions.

2) I didnt give you a history of evolution. I explained how our morality works with evolution- how we base many decisions on our survival.


Furthermore, on the subjectivity of god, can you explain how god can be an objective standard when the interpretation of the bible is open to many versions and God himself is unknowable?









Evolution is merely change? Wow. This is the problem right here. You dont undertand evolution and you dont want to accept it. How are you going to understand the evolutionary basis of morality?

Evolution is a theory. Evolution is much more than change. The theory of evolution contains many concepts like adaptation, natural selection, mutataions, variations etc.


Loling at your ignorance.



I make explanations and you just shoud that it doesnt explain what it explains. Cool.










Nothing in this world works like that.

"God is X and so anything that goes against X is immoral"


Your god has no definition. Yaweh has no objective definition in christianity. Christianity has no objective definition itself.


You are just putting up imaginary rules to claim victory.



1) Evolution doesnt have a will

2) I never insinuated that evolution wants organisms to survive. You are talking nonsense. Natural selection- only the fittest survive

3) Consent doesnt apply to animals. Animals cant give consent. Consent is a human idea resulting from human reasoning that is only applicaple to humans.

4) Creating offsprings is good but there are natural limits. A mother can only raise a certain amount of offsprings. The greatest good can not be having overpopulation. Furthermore, we have reasoning.









Wrong

In fulfilment of my promise, i have come back to this thread. However, I don't see a reason to continue the argument here because it has lost it's appeal to me plus it will only result in a headless back and forth.
So what I'll offer instead is that we make "your evolutionary basis for morality" the topic for our next discourse. I'd like to see you articulate it and defend it properly.

Mr_Anony:
In fulfilment of my promise, i have come back to this thread. However, I don't see a reason to continue the argument here because it has lost it's appeal to me plus it will only result in a headless back and forth.
So what I'll offer instead is that we make "your evolutionary basis for morality" the topic for our next discourse. I'd like to see you articulate it and defend it properly.

You know, this is my favourite topic. I am salivating.



Open a thread and state the problems with my evolutionary basis for morality argument, please. I will gladly rebut.


I have opened a thread before, so its ur turn now

Logicboy03:


You know, this is my favourite topic. I am salivating.



Open a thread and state the problems with my evolutionary basis for morality argument, please. I will gladly rebut.


I have opened a thread before, so its ur turn now

Any problems I would list in such a thread, I have already pointed out here. I would prefer a person to person debate because then it is easier to show you the flaws in your logic. I am not interested in continuing an aimless run of back and forths.

Mr_Anony:
Any problems I would list in such a thread, I have already pointed out here. I would prefer a person to person debate because then it is easier to show you the flaws in your logic. I am not interested in continuing an aimless run of back and forths.

What do you mean person to person debate? Do you mean in person?

Logicboy03:


What do you mean person to person debate? Do you mean in person?

yeah when we meet again

Mr_Anony:
yeah when we meet again

What If I came to oxford? You need to be debunked and I need to see Oxford. Been to many places but not there

Logicboy03:



What If I came to oxford? You need to be debunked and I need to see Oxford. Been to many places but not there

Lol, That will be interesting. When do you wanna come to oxford?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, That will be interesting. When do you wanna come to oxford?

Will email/call you tonite. Some hater might intercept me, if I say here

Logicboy03:


Will email/call you tonite. Some hater might intercept me, if I say here

paranoia