God is real

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I think you sort of skipped my question. What is the cause of the societal anxieties that you are proposing as a source of morality ? Is it about group survival (genetic) or does it have some other cause ?

And what part of "many" are you refusing to understand? Again, I'm not a scientist, so don't come to me looking for scientific explanations on these issues.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Woah, stop just a minute. I'm just asking you what is your proposal for why humans beings even have the concept of morality. I'm trying to propose possible positions that I might hold if I was you. If you've got some other coherent explanation I'm happy to hear it.

Clearly, nothing I have said, thus far, is satisfactory to you. You have made up your mind that an invisible God needs to be appeased and that you and other guardians of his will must see to it that both his vanity and yours are accommodated. Unless I can offer you something that fits within that framework, you are bound to bombard me with all sorts of obfuscation until you get me to concede to your reality. It ain't gonna happen.

[thomastwo]

Well, if you don't really have a thought out reason as to why morality exists, that's OK. Just say so. But if I was you I'd be kind of curious as to how such an apparent concept fitted into my world view. Just saying.

Sternwallow wrote

You do not see the certainty of eternal Hell-fire torment as a coercion by force?

Do you think that there might come a time when an agreement with God could be adjudicated against Him and punishment meted out to Him?

If a VW was the only transportation permitted by law and later it was not permitted, but a Lamborghini was the new permitted vehicle, then absolutely the law was changed. All the verbal squirming that been generated in centuries of trying has failed to reconcile a new covenant with an eternally unchangeable earlier covenant.

Any covenant with God is useless and meaningless (hence it is a fraud perpetrated on the believer) especially if God really does exist. He doesn't keep promises and you can't make Him.

The OT law was not just for the Hebrew Nation, it was to be imposed on every other nation, group, tribe or individual person. The command to search for people to slaughter for worshipping some other god proves this.

God has set some pretty high standards to live up to and, so far, according to His official biography, He has failed every one, the hateful, jealous, evil-creating scofflaw prick.

You still want to drive the VW don't you? Okay. I've parked mine in the garage, got a nice tarp on it and ocassionaly I go out, look at it and start it up just to the what it sounds like but I like the big carbon foot print. Dirve on.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Well, if you don't really have a thought out reason as to why morality exists, that's OK. Just say so. But if I was you I'd be kind of curious as to how such an apparent concept fitted into my world view. Just saying.

Don't tell me I don't have a thought-out reason for why "morality" exists. I've explained to you over several posts that "morality" is conceptual and not concrete. You want me to give you a biological basis for why we indulge that concept and I am not a biologist.

[Tenspace]

thomastwo wrote

Are you saying that aversion to homosexuality might also be a genetic trait ? And that therefore homsexuality being considered immoral is something that is probably unavoidable ?

I think I'd prefer to think that our morality while it may be influenced by our genetics should be seperate from it. For example, a guy with high-testosterone levels may be more likely to be an adulterer, but for me that doesn't make the adultery less immoral for that person. It seems to me that it's the action not the inclination that defines morality.

So, then, you would define morality as the difference between how we think and how we act?

[Irreligious]

It sounds to me like he is defining morality as behaviors of which he approves. Of course, he'll then want me or somebody else here to provide a biological basis for his specific preferences before he accepts that assertion.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

For the purposes of this argument the cause is not relevant. The only relevant point is that it is considered a moral issue. My only question is regarding the source of morality, i.e. why do humans have a common concept that there is a correct and an incorrect way to behave ?

That question is irrelevant to the argument because societies all have different notions on which behaviors are or are not acceptable.

How in your worldview do you explain the existence of morality.

In my worldview there are behaviors that incur risk at various levels. Such behaviors are reasonably prevented at the society level with appropriately stringent laws, some of which are considered morals. Having created reasonable rules for itself, a society may, through systemic fear or greed or some other motive, create laws labeled "moral" that are not reasonable.

How does your worldview accommodate morals that are evil by the definition of their own creator?

Homosexuality is just a case in point. Why in your worldview is it a moral issue ?

In my worldview, it is decidedly not a moral issue. That was easy; ask another one.

Others in this thread have suggested that morality is an evolutionary by-product related to the need for group survival. If that's the case then doesn't that suggest that homosexuality (or anything else considered immoral by a group) should be something that negatively impacts group survival.

Good point. Society may, and often does, set up rules as morals just because it thinks a behavior might possibly risk something it finds comfortable.

Also, doesn't this theory suggest that morality would be genetic ? What would the implications be for morality if it was genetic in nature ?

Some behaviors are genetic and some behaviors are cultural and the attitude of the culture toward behaviors persists over generations and the attitude evolves.

Behaviors may be either genetically or culturally inherited. However they arise, they can be labeled as moral or immoral and the labeling may be incorrect, that is the proscribed behavior may not damage or even risk damage to the society.

The notion of homosexuality just makes some (homophobic) people "queasy" (because of early cultural conditioning) and they mistake it for a divine revelation that God also gets queasy over some of His creations.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

It sounds to me like he is defining morality as behaviors of which he approves. Of course, he'll then want me or somebody else here to provide a biological basis for his specific preferences before he accepts that assertion.

Now you're just posting straw-man positions. I understand that you don't want to carry on down the particular line of argument I was on. That's OK. But no need to hit out with these ridiculous assertions.

Nowhere did I say that morality was a behaviour of which I approved. And my biological argument is just an attempt to work out what on earth you actually think the reason is for humans to be moral.

[Irreligious]

Thanks, Sterny.

He is a scientist, by the way, thomastwo. I don't expect that will appease you, though. You've got it in your head that it is biologically imprinted in humans to detest homosexuality and, possibly, other "unpopular" but benign behaviors, which justifies your claim that these behaviors must also offend some invisible deity.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Now you're just posting straw-man positions. I understand that you don't want to carry on down the particular line of argument I was on. That's OK. But no need to hit out with these ridiculous assertions.

Nowhere did I say that morality was a behaviour of which I approved. And my biological argument is just an attempt to work out what on earth you actually think the reason is for humans to be moral.

thomastwo, you are vexing me by asking what I think are entirely irrelevant questions, but I'm deadly earnest about my assertion that that, ultimately, is your definition of morality. If it offends you, then it must offend God. Why am I wrong about this?

[thomastwo]

Tenspace wrote

So, then, you would define morality as the difference between how we think and how we act?

I think morality is what one ought to do. In the realm of action it's clear that it applies. In the realm of thoughts I think a finer distinction is needed. I think there are thoughts which are driven by natural inclinations or preferences or moods or genetics "she's pretty". I think these are not really the realm of morality although I also think that you can train yourself in limiting those that lead to immoral actions. Then there are thoughts related to the deliberate planning of action which I think can be immoral "i'm going to hang around over by the bar to see if i can pick her up" (e.g. for a married man).

[ghoulslime]

thomastwo wrote

Ten, so if I follow what you are saying correctly you are imagining something along the lines of the following. We have some genetic disposition that leads towards morality e.g. in the case of homosexuality maybe there is some genetic disposition to fear that which is different. Which could be a predictor of survival even if it's not specifically a predictor in relationship to homosexuality. Then that genetic trait could be further "enhanced" by nurture within societies resulting in morality issue around homosexuality ?

Am I following you ?

Do you really have any idea what you are following?

While I can appreciate your fear of death and your resolute desire to best your mortality with eternal paradise, I really cannot fathom why your wishful thinking would hope for the slightest veracity in the obviously cruel fables of ancient savages. What a desperate foundation for a life view!

What sad and sorry soul would worship a god who presented the following as a standard of morality to follow?

Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ~ Angry god of Abraham

Your squalid zeal is no substitute for logic.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

thomastwo, you are vexing me by asking what I think are entirely irrelevant questions, but I'm deadly earnest about my assertion that that, ultimately, is your definition of morality. If it offends you, then it must offend God. Why am I wrong about this?

Wrong because as I said previously, I'm taking the Bible as the source of moral guidance. It's not about my personal preference.

[ubs]

ghoulslime wrote

Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ~ Angry god of Abraham

Your squalid zeal is no substitute for logic.

He won't address Bible inconsistencies...which is too bad because I have this cool "Bible of Her" or Shebible that has no inconsistencies for only 9.99.