₦airaland Forum

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]im sorry to interfere. just got tempted to give my opinion:

wrong (if it causes the animal pain), right (as long as the dead animal is put to use, such as eaten,etc. hunting is better than domestication), wrong (it can be avoided by getting those items from dead animals or by harvesting it from them without the need to kill), wrong (against nature), wrong (cruel. is ok only if the animals are given treatment after that and are given long breaks after fights and not put to any other tasks), right (same reason as above bracketed), however these days we dont use them so does not apply today, right (as long as you dont torture him to death and do eat him. however you will be a savage if you eat an animal that you share a personal relationship with and who trusts you. so in that case it will be wrong.), wrong (its cruel to torture animals and cause unnecessary sufferring).[/quote]Please comply with the rules. It is not possible to read and understand your post as it is. Quote the questions and place your answers.

Uyi Iredia: They really got to you didn't they. Just thank God logicboy wasn't there - to further confound you with his thoughts.

Yes they did. Astonishing views. But lets concentrate on this one. And logicboy was there. About 2 or 3 meaningless posts.

Yes, here we are again. I'd like you fellas to please advice me with respect to the following.

Is there any value or meaning to the concept "Cruelty to Animals", and if so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals

I would particularly like to understand if in this regard -

- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, ivory, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beasts such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Eating animals alive (such as the Japanese do with some types of fish) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Killing animals for ritualistic purposes is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

Answer according to whatever worldview or moral stance you have: do not be bothered about mine, I do not wish us to start debating what morality means and why, not just now, anyhow, not after that 19 page headache of saying nothing to one another. So just answer according to your personal take. Please do not give an academic answer that you just feel is politically or scientifically correct only. Give answers of your personal moral opinion and how you would feel about such acts.

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an extensive explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses, cars and bespoke str.ippers. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Your answers please.

Yes, here we are again. I'd like you fellas to please advice me with respect to the following.

Is there any value or meaning to the concept "cruelty" to animals, and if so, why?

I would particularly like to understand if in this regard -

- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beats such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - >Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

Answer according to whatever worldview or moral stance you have: do not be bothered about mine, I do not wish us to start debating what morality means and why, not just now, anyhow. So just answer according to your personal take. Please do not give an academic answer that you feel is politically correct. Give answers of your personal opinion and how you would feel about such acts.

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses and cars. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Your answers please.

^^^ And so shall it be! : I am off to open a thread on cruelty to animals, and have someone explain to me whats wrong or right with it as a concept. You are welcome with your thoughts, but please if its the usual "we cannot know anything-ish" stuff you have on offer: don't bother - consider that already heard and noted, and even "not known for sure" either - since of course, all permutations in eternity are not known.

Ciao.

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . .

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . .

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.

Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

RIP indeed.

Or better said - Shikena.

^^^ Sorry, that post, with every respect to dear wiegraf, was meaningless, illogical rambling. In fairness, to him, he confessed as much before so saying. Random thoughts whithout any logical construct, thought development, direction, conclusion or pith of meaning whatsoever.

That post could only be a delight to one such as yourself, who delights in the art of the vague, the meaningless, and the science of saying and concluding nothing, every-time.

I have a different turn of mind. Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I like to have said something, rather than always being the "neither here nor there-ish", "tend to-ish", "bias for-ish," "cannot know anything-ish" sort - or meaninglessness, which should only exist in outer space and not within the committee of the living, the purposeful, the sentient, the sapient.

As for death, the thread died long long ago, when the likes of thehomer and wiegraf refused to see kindergarten contradictions such as non material considerations for materialists and being an animal, but being evil for acting as all animals do. Everything that has been said afterwards were merely epitaphs on the thread. . . --->

Deep Sight: What a waste of time.

thehomer: The five senses don't measure X-rays, magnetism, radio waves, electrons and many other phenomena.

Directly or indirectly through machines, you can measure and perceive these things with your five senses . . .

What a waste of time.

Pastor AIO: I see you've gone from Human Morality to Group Morality.

If only one human being ever existed, there would be no discussion on morals, would there?

You see? Same ol, same ol.

Abeg.

Pastor AIO: And the Spirit gets information from Where?

Ol boy no tricks. The spirit gets information from the entire spiritual environment about it, just as the brain gets information from the entire material environment about it.

This in no way suggests or infers that the spirit would have a panoramic view of all eternity and all permutations of all events, period. So stop dancing about ol pal.

Pastor AIO: Far from 'obviating' any notion of morality in fact we'll find that our Morals are very much based on our instinctual Urges. For instance we have an Urge to protect our loved ones. This is instinctive. You don't need any moral lawgiver to tell you that. We can empathise. We can feel the plight of others. These are just rudimental aspects of human experience.
If you have an Urge to shelter and nourish a weak foreigner then that is not because you are told to by some book, but rather because in doing so you will be satisfying a deep urge within you. The satiation of that urge is as satisfying as the satiation of any other urges whether it is to eat food, or to quench thirst.

Pastor in wonderland! Conveniently referring to good and nice instinctual urges, Lol.

^^^ Lol, you conveniently forget the deluge of bad, bad, very bad instinctual urges that mankind also have!

Many of them even perverse in the extreme!

There's no pushing the matter with you. Whichever way we turn, you have made it an absurdity that cannot be discussed.

WOW! SOMETHING JUST OCCURRED TO ME!

I WONDER WHAT OUR FRIENDS HERE THINK ABOUT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND THE VARIOUS LAWS DEVELOPING AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

OMG! THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS UP THE ARGUMENTS AS TRULY EMPTY AND WORTHY OF THE TRASH CAN!

OMG!

1. - - - It is morally okay to kill and eat animals

2. - - - It is not morally okay to hurt or torture animals

3. - - - (2) above, hold true because animals are living creatures that feel pain, hurt, fear and psychological stress and grief

4. - - - But it is morally okay to kill and eat animals

I guess the Hindus are on to something after all!

OMG! This discussion is a hypocritical waste of time.

@ Lightninglord. I am sorry but I cannot make head or tail of your posts. Perhaps you need the whole thread in your spare time. If you cannot do that, answering these specific questions would help -

1. What is strict materialism.

2. Does strict materialism admit of the existence of anything non-physical?

3. Are humans animals?

4. Is it wrong for smarter animals to develop smarter ways of effecting natural predatory and territorial behavior?

5. Is the predatory territorial behavior IN FACT observed [b]both historically and currently[/b]y among humans in nature.

6. Is it possible to qualify either historical human predatory territorial behavior among themselves as immoral.

7. Q. 6 for same behavior in modern times?

thehomer: Fallacies apply to anyone trying to use reason. If the reasoning is erroneous, then there's some problem with it. Fallacies are generally the ways that reasoning have been known to go wrong.

What you fail to understand is that a fallacious notion of things will deny the person being fallacious or absurd from using the legitimate logical fallacy as his defense.

In this regard alleging the fallacy of natural appeal [b]cannot avail some one who says that only physical nature exists: this is because that would mean there is nothing else for him to appeal to. Must explaining this to you be so painful?[/b]

Now because you are being so dull on this matter I will spell it out for you with a few examples. Let me randomly pick some logical fallacies and show you how they cannot avail the person adopting an absurd stance against them.

Your statement alleging an appeal to nature, must be redundant against one (a strict materialist) who insists nature is all that exists, just as surely as -

This is an example of a propositional fallacy:

Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

If a person tells me that I am committing this fallacy, he cannot also be a person who believes that if A, then B; B, therefore A in his own argument. Such a person will not be entitled to say that I am committing a fallacy by accusing him of same, if his argument itself holds such. In the same way, the strict materialist cannot shout "wrong! appeal to nature!" when his very strict materialism stands squarely on nature and nature alone and admits nothing else to exist.

The queer illogicallity of this is further shown by the fact that an appeal to nature must be correct and acceptable, if indeed, as the strict materialist says, physical nature is all that exists.

This is why the strict materialist cannot allege an appeal to nature as a logical fallacy! His worldview MUST endorse appeals to nature as he says that physical nature IS ALL THAT EXISTS!

In fact, this is so hair-raisingly obvious that I feel like a dumb ass eediot having to explain it this many times. But that is what talking to you does to one.

Therefore I am not going to repeat myself one more time on this one: it makes me nauseous and feel like puking.

Punk you're definitely being lazy on this thread. Even worse, you're denying your own words that are still available on this thread. What was the point of your mentioning these "karmic laws" if not as some reason for morality? The worst thing here is that you now try to insulate these preposterous ideas from scrutiny by saying you cannot discuss them because I haven't swallowed your unexplained notion of the spirit. You see, if we can discuss nature and matter because we both accept their existence, then surely you should be ready to discuss this new field you're introducing. If your arguments are good, who knows? You may be able to convince me or someone else.

The claim that someone else won't accept something so you won't bother explaining it is based on either your hubris or your fear that there really is nothing to that idea. The lay person would find it difficult to understand black-holes, quantum mechanics and cosmic evolution. Yet the experts take the time to explain these things but Mr Deep Sight can't be bothered to explain to us his notions of karma and the spirit because we don't accept them already. Ignoring the fact that the features I mentioned weren't accepted some time ago but became accepted with evidence and explanation.

Oh no, this is not true, I have interacted with you for years on this forum and have abundantly expressed my views, take and reasons for the spirit. Going back to such will be like going back to argue trinity with davidylan, which I have done a zillion times. It would be st.upid, infantile, even. Nevertheless if you want my views again I am labouring over a short epistle in a thread Plaetton opened on Consciousness and I will say my all on Spirituality there, you can always read it if interested.

you're willing to accept a logical fallacy therefore I should make one for you to say you accept.

You still dont get it. I am not the one willing to accept a logical fallacy. I say that the strict materialist atheist MUST accept that fallacy because he says nothing else exists. Simple.

Ihedinobi: It's amusing how someone confuses himself so deliberately in the hopes of spreading his confusion on everyone else.

@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say? Because I'm curious to see how it allows you to be more than physical, ie, meta-physical.

Honestly o. Such simple 1 + 1 logic appears too much for him!

We talk about strict materialism and he wishes the strict materialist to be able, without batting an eye lid, insist on his strict materialism and yet reach away from it to canvass his moral views. He doea not see the very elementary fact that this alone renders such a person NOT a strict materialist!

He says that the strict materialist can employ non materialist concepts. And yet is a strict materialist.

He says that the strict materialist is not bound by nature: and yet contends that nature is all that exists for the strict materialist.

He says that humans are animals but that it is wrong for humans to do what animals do.

According to him, humans are animals but will be evil if they do what animals do.

The only difference between humans and animals, for him, is intelligence, and he yet says it will be wrong and evil for the humans, who are animals, to use their greater intelligence to do what animals do.

He sees no other animal to restrain in this fashion - only humans.

thehomer is way too funny honestly.

thehomer: If something is a logical fallacy, then whether one is a materialist or anything else, it simply is a fallacy. You are just asserting that I must agree to commit this logical fallacy maybe because you'll look the other way but I don't work that way. I think you really need to take a look at the fallacy of making an appeal to nature when it comes to morality.

And I have said that that fallacy does not apply to the view point of a strict materialist. It cannot, because a strict materialist by definition hold material nature to be all that exists. I dont know whether you dont know what a strict materialist is, or you are just looking the other way when cornered.

I demonstrated two things to you.

1, Your reason wasn't a reason at all and
2, you were misusing the idea of karma with regards to morality.

Son, you're really being lazy in this thread. I never even used the idea of Karma for any of my arguments in this thread. You asked my opinion on morality and in explaining it I also mentioned Karmaic laws, which work at the level of the spirit. I specifically recall saying I cannot discuss this with you since you reject the existence of the spirit. I however, can discuss nature and matter with you because we both accept the existence of nature and matter.

It appears that due to your discomfort in trying to defend your view, you're trying to simply ignore my requests for you to provide your explanations.

I have more than abundantly canvassed and expatiated on my view that the strict materialist cannot have a quarrel with that which is standard fare in material nature as it also demonstrably occurs to humans - who are part of material nature. Your views, on the other hand, have been wild contradictions of these basic facts.

^^^ Obviously its too hard for you to take on the specific points made and deconstruct them. I will not respond to side jibes and non-starters. The points are there, if you are able, look them squarely in the eye and explain why they are wrong. Simple. All these one line escapist remarks that have nothing to do with how to bed a unicorn style chic are just boring.

wiegraf: I disagree as that is, more or else, the source of morality, therefore very relevant. You seem to be ignoring that.

Your issues on consciousness will be better addressed on that thread. I am writing an epistle for it, and it would not be efficient to repeat myself.

But just as a little teaser, do your body parts form voltron or do they work for voltron?

And, as has been asked (or pointed out) time and again, how is this a dilemma? Are you saying that because someone's views are materialistic one cannot object to say cannibalism?

O dear, o dear. I am really surprised that you fellows do not see the dilemma of someone who says that only physical nature exists and yet seeks to locate his morality on something else?

We have shown you that that is false, yes?

Don't make me laugh, lol, none of you have shown a single thing whatsoever on this thread.

If physical nature is all that exists, it must perforce be the reference point for morality, simple. How anyone can ask for an explanation of that, just beats me.

It is like agreeing that every cake in the world is made of flour and yet insisting that you have a cake that's made of something else.

Thus, saying that everything that exists is physical nature, but then saying that you have something that is NOT physical nature!

How is this a logical fallacy, as thehomer lazily claims? Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself!

That is the meaning of strict materialism. That everything is physical matter, and we and all living things are, and derive from the interplay of physical matter alone. In the first place one wonders why things that derive from mindless interactions of matter need to have any moral compunctions at all. In the second, and more relevant case, one wonders why the strict materialist would then seek to dissociate himself from the territorial and predatory inter working evident in ALL of nature?

In other words, he is trying to stand aside from and dissociate himself from something that he says is the only thing that exists and is ALL that exists!

Beat that man!

Its an absurd, absurd absurd stance.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is NOBODY on this planet that lives his life with this stance in mind. Nobody whatsoever. There are only baby atheists with poorly thought out views who claim that they are strict materialists. No human being can actually be one - for that would entail denying his very thoughts, which are not physical things. His very emotions, which are not physical things. His very ideas and conceptions, which are not physical things. His imaginations and fantasies, which aren't physical things.

wiegraf: Even if one indulged you, are you implying that consciousness, which comes with a heavy dose of emotion, emotions that are responsible for our goals, is not.... natural? Why?

There is a thread Plaetton opened on which I will address that - that question derails from the discussion here.

Because you say so?

Where did your magical spirit being get it's goals from?

Now, what I say, and this derived from thehomer's position - what I say is that the strict materialist cannot be a strict materialist and at the same time reject physical nature as his reference point for morality. That is contradictory and absurd. No escape there. Absolutely none.

Pastor AIO: Experience does not lack pertinence and can be discussed. I mean the whole extent of human Experience. Whether real or delusory there is no denying an experience and in life we all seek pleasant experiences and abhor bad ones. Even the delusions. Before going to sleep you might drink Camomile tea because it gives you pleasant dreams. Other food or drink, or drugs might give you horrid dreams.
We go to the movies in search of pleasant experiences even though we know that the story on the screen is not real. We still immerse ourselves in it and fully enjoy the experience.

The whole extent of human experience could simply be in my thoughts and imagination and as such I am free to do anything therein and no question of morality or immorality should come up within it - I should only be concerned with my comfort and pleasurable existence within my thoughts and imaginations. Such obviates any notion of morality and this is why anyone who would advance that notion should kindly also stay away from discussions about morality completely, as the notion would thereby be dead on arrival. It would not exist at all.

The notion can be advanced to substantiate (to yourself) your existence, but has no place in a discussion about group morality and ethics.

Pastor AIO: How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

I should briefly add the following -

1. The promptings and intuitions of the spirit, while well appointed, do not constitute "full knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation", do they?

2. The promptings of the Spirit of individual persons in individual situations cannot be used to develop a moral code for a society. . . unless, as you know to be unlikely, they all receive the same spiritual prompting on every matter every time. Both impossible and absurd. Someone may have had a spiritual prompting to murder Adolf Hitler when he was a baby, for example. How would that rate on the moral compass of society if they actually did it?

3. The promptings of each spirit, even if lucid and clear, will reach towards their individual spiritual leanings. As such, as a rough example, where a man commits a grievous act, the promptings of the spirits of the victims may be vastly different from the promptings of the spirit of his family and those who may want to protect him.

4. As you may know, spiritual promptings are often unclear and not easily deciphered into the temporal mind. One meaning could be confused for another.

Think carefully on each of these, and perhaps you will see why this has little place in a discussion on the basis of morality. In the example you gave in the other thread about the man who gives his friend money, his action is probably kind, but neither moral nor immoral based on the outcome of the friend being mugged.

Pastor AIO: How are you so certain of the part that I put in bold?

Because not even the spiritual mind has a panoramic view of all eternity, all permutations and all results and consequences. Only God does.

@ Pastor, here are your words -

That's the thing. Without knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation it is impossible to make a moral judgement on anything.

https://www.nairaland.com/335826/pastor-aio-come-teach-us#4723301

It is not possible for anyone to ever have knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation, end of.

Not with the carnal mind, and not even with the spiritual mind - as I note you made that distinction.

Simple as that, ol pal.

PS: Note that I did not say that you said - I said that you "rendered it impossible to make a moral judgment on anything." With this sort of world view, you must note that it becomes irrational and unnaceptable for even courts to exist: as each man has his own "moral bias" and no one else on this planet may ever have "knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation".

In short, that talk is completely irrelevant to any discussion about group morality and this is why I say it is unnecessary and useless taking up the subject with you.

Pastor AIO: Number of points. 1) I never said that 'we cannot know anything'. For instance I said that I can be sure that 'I' exist. How and where, I may not know, but I know that I exist.

2) No statement crumbles with your approach above. Rather you are caught in a paradox. It is Paradox that certain people find so unpalatable. Yet we find Paradox in every system of thought. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then don't think too deeply about life.
What you consider a crumbling argument is what I would term a mystery. I can't remember where exactly but I have defined my used of 'mystery' on nairaland before as 'Not a catch all term for the as yet unknown, but rather a term for the Unknowable'.

Many say something is a mystery but they hope that with time the mystery will clear up and they'll know.

I say there are somethings that are beyond the categories of knowledge. When we approach these things we are met with paradox. That shows that you are at the limits of knowledge/beliefs/epistemological claims.

3) I would not just say that Morality was subjective. I would say that I have a bias for my morality. This bias instinctively makes me fight to defend my biased morals. It's a common method when say a theist and an atheist from the same country are arguing over morality, that an example is advanced, say cannibalism. 'Is cannibalism moral'? Of course the other party would never say cannibalism was moral because he comes from the same cultural milieu as the person asking the question and so has the same bias to hate cannibalism.
No, such an approach is just plain dumb. The perfect response to that question would be, 'I, too, find cannibalism objectionable because I've been raised to do so and I will go to the end of the world to have it stamped out, however to demonstrate that it is an objective moral, my friend, you would have to travel to Papua New Guinea and convince some aborigines with logic and arguments that it is morally wrong. If you can do that then I'll start to concede that it might be universal.'

Lol.

thehomer: This is quite illogical and laughable. You're asking me to accept a logical fallacy simply because you think I should?

Is this your attempt at escaping the fact that karma doesn't help you?

Logical fallacy? Are you kidding me? This can never be a logical fallacy for a strict materialist who beleives that everything that exists is physical and all things derive from nature. He has nowhere else to derive his morality from bur from said nature. So the strict materialist cannot do a double-flip on this. I will not let you play word games on this one: this point is cast in iron and adamantine.

And I did not discuss anything to do with Karma with you by the way. You asked a question, I gave my reason, and specifically said I was aware it means nothing to you.

^^^ Stop making hopeless one-liners that are utterly illogical, side-stepping the points made: a strict materialist can never be seen to argue that something is a fallacy from nature. That is an inescapable contradiction. Period.

thehomer: So a 6 month old child has communicated to you why it peed in your face while you were trying to help?

Please do not venture into absurdity if you intend to keep the conversation a serious one. Being humans ourselves we know the perceptions, desires and needs of humans. You are not a Lion and thus do not necessarily know what a lion's notions are. You may observe him, but you are not inside his mind.

I brought this up because you brought up an answer saying that if an alien knew what was within the minds of humans, he would know that for humans, this or that is wrong. This is the same way that if humans knew what was in the mind of Lions, we would know that for lions, this or that is wrong - and that they therefore have their own moral compass.

Please let us not be distracted by this, it is a side-point anyway.

Is that your main confusion? My response is that it was still immoral and generally Christians would agree but they're often blinded with their God glasses. Those people just didn't know it. Now the problem Christians face is that their God should have known and have given better commands.

Why should he have known? It is in order surely, for him to give them commands suited to their stage of evolution, no? Would you hold homo erectus to the same moral standards of homo sapiens? If you insist that morality evolves with creatures, and man evolved from lower creatures, then it would make perfect sense to expect that there would be an appropriate state of nature he dwells in at every stage of his evolution. It would thus make sense to say that ancient men were at that stage of their evolution and as such everything they did was only natural. In this context it cannot be deemed wrong. Furthermore, their God would know that it was appropriate for them at that stage.

This is the right and proper reasoning and logic that should follow from your contentions.

And this is just your own misunderstanding. In fact, what you're doing above is an appeal to nature which is fallacious. The fact that those actions are natural doesn't make them moral.

A strict materialist CANNOT say this! For a strict materialist, everything springs from nature and the physical environment! As such, it should be perfectly sensible to look to nature and appeal to nature in all things, for the strict materialist.

If all things spring from nature, and you say that a given thing is perfectly natural, you would be contradicting yourself to say that such a thing is wrong or evil.

Now why is it very wrong and immoral?

Because I see man as a spiritual being living in a spiritual environment with attendant spiritual laws such as Karma. However I will not go into this with you as you do not believe any of that. As such, all I can do is show you that your own perspective on the matter is contradictory.

Whatever his moral compass is, it isn't good for humans at the very least. And that is the other arm of my argument against religious folks reading this.

You cannot tell that it is not good for humans: a simple argument for example may be made that wars and such other fatal competitions must have been necessary to hone the skills of early men into being fit, ruthless and brutal enough to rule the earth as against its many other living dangers and predators. It would fit perfectly into the development of man as seen from a historical perspective and therefore would not be wrong.

Just as surely as the Greeks would never have had the rigor and discipline to defeat Persia if they had not fought a lot among themselves already and mastered a military culture therefore.

thehomer: Without being in the heads of children, we're able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral judgements. Have you ever wondered why?

Children are the same creatures that we are: being of our species and as such we can communicate with them. A lion has never explained to you why he does what he does and just how it feels, he?

But you have just been a wild maze of astounding confusion in this thread.

It would seem so from your very contradictory point of view.

You do realize that the form of expression of territorial and behaviour has taken a different turn.

And morality with it?

With this you have hammered yourself.

If indeed these "forms of expression" take "different turns" then you have no place condemning the genocides of the bible: these would simply be predatory territorial animals doing what comes naturally to them, at a time in history when further common grounds of morality had yet to evolve.

I've answered so many of your questions that I think it is time for you to try some of mine.

It is false to say that you have answered any of my questions. You have answered almost none.

Is it right to command a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Going by your definition of man as merely a smarter animal, it is very very right and natural and proper to be engaged in genocides against groups whose resources you seek to control.

Going by my definition of man as a spirit being, it is very wrong and immoral.

And as for the issuer of the command, you do not know what his moral compass is, do you - just as animals do not know ours, do they?

thehomer: I don't care about how it discovers that knowledge, I said if it had that knowledge, then it would be able to understand that for a human, certain actions would be wrong. You're about to hitch your argument to something irrelevant.

And yet curiously without being in the heads of other predatory territorial animals, you are able to pronounce conclusively that they do not have the properties to make moral choice or judgments, notwithstanding that you see them carrying out the same acts of predatory aggression that humans have always carried out, and protecting their families as humans do.

You sir, have been a wild maze of preposterous contradictions in this thread.

Most cardinally, you have failed to show, and of course you cannot show just why greater intelligence should stop a predatory territorial animal from being predatory and territorial in greater and better ways.

plaetton: Let's have a discussion and speculate on the possible origin of consciousness and sentience.

I thank you immensely for raising this subject: for it is a subject I have been dwelling ever more on in recent times. Indeed, I have intended to open a thread on same, but never had the words to describe my feelings on the matter to our many very unseeing atheists.

I will seize this thread as an opportunity to do so.

At the great risk of contradicting my atheistic world view,It may seem, again from my viewpoint, that consciousness, whether individual, collective or universal, may be the driving impetus for life and survival.
In other words, for the sake of this discussion, I am agreeing with you that there is an underlying consciousness, though impersonal, that seem to guide life.

As a theist, I already know that you would see consciousness as the divine gift of an omni omni super duper creator god.
And I know that you are quite capable of eloquently waxing philosophical to buttress this view.

So, I wish you would agree with me that no matter how sweet and eloquent it makes you feel, your notions are, at best,a good sounding hypothesis and nothing more.

If we can agree that god is a hypothesis, then it behoves us to look further and speculate further on the possible origins of consciousness

No, my dear: this is no matter of a "good sounding hypothesis" - it is rather a matter of what is very very real - it is the very core of what we are as conscious beings. Consciousness is such a self-evident proof of not only the existence, but the very nature of that origin of origins that is GOD.

In all seriousness, it amazes me that any thinking conscious being, could fail to see that: and could fail to see what he is, and what that means for what God is.

In this regard I recently asked an atheist on this forum a very subtle question, for which he gave me a most disappointing answer. I asked him if he could see himself; and if anyone else could see him. The answer to this question is very telling, and it reveals to the clear-minded the simple truth about what beings we are and as such what the origin of all life is. But I will come to this in a further post.

Firstly, what exactly is your take on evolution?.

There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things, but I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance.

thehomer: Humans have been known to kill others for mates.

Going further. As an extra terrestrial researcher you come upon the earth and its basket of living creatures. You observe that humans kill one another for mates, resources, land, wealth, survival and other desires. You observe that ALL creatures on same planet do this. Why on earth (no pun intended) would you say that the human is doing something wrong, unnatural or perverse?

Just why?

And please, no escapist answers, such as asking me to define the nature and morality of you, the extra terrestrial being. I easily expect such a response from you. Answer frontally, directly, honestly, and without any attempt at escapist games.