So what you are clearly saying AGAIN, is you will not address or even attempt to substantiate your constant statement and position you state over and over in thread after thread that :

- people who believe in evolution (people of no faith, atheists, ?) do not have any type of governor on the actions they might take because if they believe everything is simply from 'the goo to the zoo' and 'survival of the fittest' what is to stop them justifying any action no matter how immoral or heinous

versus

- people who have faith (believe in God and his word) do have such moral governors, based in their belief and his word and thus this acts as a limitation or buttress against immoral and heinous actions


And you repeat this despite the fact we have a history of God fearing religious groups on this planet we can contrast with 'non believers' and show not only is it not true or accurate or factual and in fact (recent history, ie Trump) that religious people, alongside White Supremist are the easiest for immoral persons seeking power to coopt to empower them.

Yup, that is right, you have to look to White Supremist as a group to find another group as complicit as Evangelicals in empowering the immoral. What a basket.

Anyway Laggy, just be prepared for me to call you an 'absolute and proven liar' every time you state this in the future (which I expect to be a lot) as this is proven now. You cannot hide behind 'I can state it as if fact and true but never defend it' as a pretense anymore. You will NEVER address this as you know you cannot, but you want to keep stating it anyway.

And a lie is defined as any attempt to deceive when the person knows what they are not saying is not accurate or true. You know. Your avoidance of answering shows you know. And yet you cut, paste, repeat that lie.

It is sad Laggy. As a religious person you need to strive to do better. Lying for lying sake should be off your menu.

Laggy, you know the below is the nice way of saying you are lying, right?

Why would you not reflect on the fact that your argumentation tactic is seen as lying because you do simply repeat things despite them being addressed prior and you failing to justify them back then but you bring them up again as if proven fact or in your favor now?

I recall you even conceding certain things to me one day about a claim you made, but then seeing the exact same statement again later stated the exact same way by you again later to someone else.

Being known as the 'religious guy' but also the one most likely to not 'argue in good faith' is not a positive laggy. You re-enforce what many people (myself including) all too often think about those who are the most religious amongst us which is they are far too often the most hypocritical and corrupted. That religion is not their salvation and it is their shield and crutch. Something for them to hide behind to convince themselves they have a superior moral foundation, when they do not.

Xian position apparently: A child is in your care. You have the choice to prey on them somehow ... kill them or molest them (or whatever heinous or disgusting thing) or to treat them more decently, HUMANELY, "morally." Does a Xian have any standard to direct their behavior if not handed to them from a supernatural source?

The answer is yes, but some of them will argue no. You know, on the "goo to zoo to you" principle (if you can call it a principle). What difference does anything make if it isn't handed to us by some supernatural force?? This is wholesale superstition: "nothing matters but supernaturalism." This also, though proposed as moral, is actually, and clearly to anyone not indoctrinated .... highly immoral. And it leads in immoral directions with no real standard to correct it.

The disrupting mechanisms are the same as for anyone else who is in a top-down, socially enforced hierarchy. You don’t know them because you are blind to them yourself.

Really bad, transparent bluff, dude. Does a human being have a standard of how to behave in the hypothetical other than a supernatural one or not??

Upon reflection, I think your criticism of my conveniently switching nomenclature is valid.

I will attempt to not use the words moral, morality, immoral and immorality. (Since I've been using those words for about fifty years, it might take a bit to totally purge them from my vocabulary "in the heat of battle.")

...It is sad Laggy. As a religious person you need to strive to do better. Lying for lying sake should be off your menu

Good, I'd much prefer to just focus on the issues being discussed. I'm willing to take you at your word.

+1

Helping the poor and weak is a religious concept; quite foreign to Evolutionism.

One of Friedrich Neitzsche's main arguments against Christianity was that the Christian worldview promoted helping the sick and poor, which meant fewer resources for the more highly evolved and evolving uberman.

Neitzsche was quite fond of Darwinism, which no doubt contributed to his philosophy. And Hitler was quite fond of Neitzsche.

The Naturalistic Fallacy is the logical error of deducing an ought (a prescriptive claim) from premises that are descriptive claims.

You are correct, I do not approve of Milo's tactics when he is engaging in shaming and ridiculing people. I also disapprove of his use of profanity.

I'm glad that we agree that it is sinful to do or say things that are "mean and bad."

Would you agree that it is "mean and bad" for a society to give a woman the right to have her unborn baby slaughtered in her womb ?

Slaughtering unborn babies would seem to be the epitome of something that is far more than "mean and bad"; it is a horrible evil. Hard to imagine an intelligent person of good will not agreeing that such a thing is evil.

Wrong!

It is a social concept. Religion is completely unnecessary for these actions. There are examples among animals of such behavior. Do they have religion?

I am "devout" atheist () and I do a fair amount of charity and volunteer work. Religion plays no part in it.

Your claim is a good example of the arrogance of the religious.

1. If an animal is performing an altruistic act, then that act would be a praiseworthy act of righteousness. Do you believe that the animal performing an altruistic act should be praised for its action?

2. If animals can engage in praiseworthy acts of righteousness, then I presume that animals can also perform acts of unrighteousness that should be condemned.. Should animals that act selfishly, for example, be condemned for their actions?

Thank you for you service! I have never claimed in this Forum that religious people as a group are more righteous than non-religious people as a group.

No it isn't.

The point is: religion did not play a part in either action, for animals or humans. Religion is an artificial construct of humans.

Good, because they definitely aren't.



Yes it is.

Charles Darwin:

Interesting quote from Darwin.

Apparently even the savage warrior understood the nobility of sacrificing himself for the good of his tribe by following his conscience; a direct result of him being made in the image of God!

As Darwin himself said (if I read what he wrote correctly), natural selection would not likely be a plausible explanation for the phenomenon.

Thanks for sharing, but you didn't answer my questions.

+1



No it isn't.

You are not reading him correctly. He is saying that group selection is a plausible evolutionary explanation for the rise of morality in human society.

I don't know if it would be possible to read it less correctly. He is specifically explaining why "moral" behaviour is a trait that would be positively selected for in tribal societies and therefore showing that natural selection provides a very good explanation for the phenomena.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes it is

As I point out above, you don't correctly understand the theory of evolution by natural selection - mechanisms by which altruistic and moral behavior would be selected by natural selection have been identified by scientists going all the way back to Darwin. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is another famous book describing how altruism can promote evolutionary fitness.

However, even granting your claim that evolution doesn't select for altruistic behavior, your post points to the exact fallacy you fall prey to in describing the implications of your opponents' beliefs. You often suggest that in some way evolution implies that we should reject altruism and morality and just be hedonists instead. However, this inference is fallacious - it is an example of the naturalistic fallacy you cite here of deducing a prescriptive claim from a descriptive one. Suppose evolution doesn't select for altruism, so what? That is a descriptive claim about what kind of behaviors have been adaptatively advantageous in some environments, not a claim about how we should act. Evolution by natural selection is a descriptive theory about the process of speciation, not a prescriptive theory of morality.

It's not so much that, given an Darwinian framework, one should reject altruism and other constructs of righteousness, but rather that there is no prescriptive imperative upon which one ought to choose altruism, as opposed to choosing hedonism.

You say tow-may-tow, I say tow-mah-tow.

This has been rather amusing referred to as the "Boo-Hooray" Theory of Ethics, to wit:

Murder: Boo!!!

Feeding the Poor: Hooray!!!

Donald Trump:

a) Republicans: Hooray!!!

b) Democrats: Boo!!!