Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 130:

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

That depends on what you mean by "moral gene". Does the gene need to act in a moral fashion, or does the gene's expression result in a more moral individual. Upon who's moral authority are we to determine such things? I contend that as we look at humans, a clearly social species (with expected outliers), we should expect being prosocial to be, if I may, the "highest form of morality". With that in mind...

...
Individuals who are homozygous for the G allele of the rs53576 SNP of the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene tend to be more prosocial than carriers of the A allele.
...

Your claims are nothing more than creative writing.

I typically prefer the writings of the creative over the writings of the ignorant.

[Artie]

After all, God gave us a set of rules and rich history full of those who follow and get it both right and wrong, he gave us science to quantify his teachings and demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and none of this, not a shread, of any of it is found in empty, bland declaration that attempts to usurp the basis knowledge - because if you claim it, however weakly, that means that your position is fully evidenced and explainable and the opposite is not.

No, actually evolution evolved rationality and morality such as logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc. To ensure people who didn't understand or didn't have these qualities justice systems evolved to keep them away from the rest of us. Evolution also evolved brains wired for religion and belief and religions so that other people who didn't have these qualities would live according to them anyway because they believed they came from some god or higher authority.

Evolution did not involve one wit of human rationality. It is nothing more than trial and error, random mutation, and the long term survival of those minimally able to survive and reproduce better than their peers through time. That is it.

And in a social context in a society like ours those who behave according to the moral codes of evolution survive and reproduce and those who don't end up dead or in jail. Survival of the fittest, fittest being those who follow the moral codes. It doesn't matter if you follow the moral codes because you understand where they came from or why all that matters is that they are followed. Therefore moral people who have logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience and follow the Golden rule survive, and people who don't have these qualities act as if they do because their brains are wired for religion and belief so they just obey what they think their god wants them to do. Sheep following their shepherds just doing what they say instead of applying logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience and the Golden rule. Cults are just sheep following the wrong shepherds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

It's the eternal dance between believers and atheists. Atheists try to use logic, reason and common sense and explain reality to believers, believers don't understand logic, reason and common sense if they had they wouldn't have been believers in the first place. Remis.

[TheTruth101]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

No, truth101. You're leaving out the most important piece. Knowledge is power. Those who are enslaved have been sheltered from knowledge. They have been sheltered from truth and justice. Slavery is 99% fear, & 1% physical, figuratively speaking. If a god who is supposed to be benevolent, does not rebuke such, then he is condoning and/or indirectly supporting such behavior.

Edit, phone acting weird again.

[Danmark]

Agh, so the oft drug up subject of slavery is the atheists call to 'superior' morality - and now, once again, since we are engaging with selective memory ... lets take yet another journey down the lane of history shall we?

Lets start with Rome. Ever heard of Spartacus? How about the Roman Servile Wars?

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

Please, by all means, take a gander at that, and understand that this is what you advocate. Mass suicide.

Fell better? Feel morally superior yet?

Less that a hundred years before Christ we have a major slave revolt, indeed the Jews themselves had already been crushed several times by Roman Legions. The entire Roman Empire was built upon slavery, and the system of retaining that slave based order, from assassination to simple brutality, were immense. Advocating slave rebellion would not only get you killed in a hurry, anyone stupid enough to follow you would be killed right along with you in the most brutal way possible to ensure that the message would get through.

But heh, since atheists are seeking 'truth' through cogent arguments, its only fair at this point to mention that atheists are obviously in favor of mass suicide. Explains a lot about Jim Jones? I digress though ...

So, what do you do if you disagree with slavery AND doing something that will only result in a lot of needless death and only heighten the strangle hold on slavery?

Why, you would have to change THE VERY BASIS OF MORALITY ITSELF!!!!

In the time when people can do nothing, you would preach that those who are stuck in positions they cannot do anything about, accept what they cannot change and whatever hand we are dealt we do the best we can and seek to follow what is moral and right to the utmost of our ability.

We also slip into the narrative a little thing called equality.

Its worth pointing out that atheist contemporaries ACTUALLY wrote during the period as well. I mean here we have atheists listing Democritus as the #1 atheist of all time!

http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/

And yet, here is what he actually though: "He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not encompassing enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus ... d_politics

But heh, knowledge is power, and the most brilliant atheist of all time apparently supported slavery ... er, even as atheists attempt to shove slavery down Christian throats. Nice.

So, I suppose the more even more 'superior' minded could just advocate pointless rebellion? Perhaps you'd like to advocate the violent overthrow of Wall Street to redistribute wealth as well? I mean, its not like THAT VIOLENT action would result in any response either? So ... great moral picture atheist. Wonderful basis for claiming that atheism is intrinsically against slavery.

Now, lets move forward a bit to the ACTUAL beginnings of the abolition movement.

You remember that part about ALL men being created equal?

Well, it turns out that some people actually read it and attempted to understand it correctly (In sharp contrast to Democritus, who didn't apply it to women or slaves). The first to do so? Quakers.

One is left wondering where the high minded atheists were when those enslaved in backward mentalities and silly dress codes were the ones the first stumble across the precept that, although we make money off of slaves ... its wrong.

And on one side of the Atlantic, we see William Wilberforce (who was earlier reduced to a mere panderer to God rather than an honorable man driven by conviction) who is able to use reason and steadfast determination to drive an entire society to reject slavery write large through the full weight of the British government.

And what a momentous change that was!!! Rather than the full weight of state going into crushing slavery and establishing systems to maintain slaves as property, we have the full weight of state protecting slaves as equal!!!! Amazing what an idea planted centuries earlier can do from germination to full blossom.

On the other side of the Atlantic, we once again see the titanic struggle required to reduce slavery. Two Nations, both equip themselves to the hilt to defend and abolish slavery. More American blood is spilt in that war than any other war America has ever fought. Once again, the roots of abolition begin in with ... Qaukers, and then spread through the American Christian Community. The leaders of the abolitionist movement are almost invariably Christian of one sort of another, with atheist, despite their high mindedness, reduced to ancillary roles.

And at the end ... we have the reduction of slavery.

It took the instruments of state, of government to reduce the crime of slavery. And indeed we can say the same thing about the modern form of slavery, human trafficking - mostly for sexual services. ONLY the government can solve that problem.

Yet we do not have an actual discussion on slavery. We do not get an lessons of slavery and what to do about it. We do not get anything other than atheists stepping on the back of honorable men who fought, and often died, so (once again) they can pull selected quotes out of context to make themselves feel superior for the work of abolitionism done by others?

Nah, this common atheist barb, this deliberately misleading portrayal of atheism as anti-slavery and Christianity as pro-slavery is so deliberately ignorant of Christian doctrine and actual history that it can only be dismissed in the strongest terms possible.

It is exactly this - these flights of fancy and sheer arrogance that have made atheism the least trusted of all faiths - and belies any atheist claims to moral superiority in any way.

After all, simple honesty is a precept in every moral code I have ever seen. That it is totally lacking in atheism's slavery driven Crusade of superiority is telling ... and entirely relevant.

When you run around shoving slavery, of all things, down the throats of people around you BASED SOLELY ON A FAITH CHOICE (a deliberate ignorance of history) ... well, the constant keening of atheist cries of bigotry need to seriously examine themselves.

What else is seeing slavery in Christianity in defiance of history itself other than bigotry? Yet another 'superior' moral trait of atheists?

All of your posts seem the same. You make false allegations, ignore the rebuttal, refuse to answer the questions put to you and go on a long rant, the purpose of which seems pure narcissism, which you then project on to others. Then you refer to whomever responded, accusing him of playing the victim and 'running to the mods' when you violate the rules of civil debate.

When your personal attack gets called to your attention, suddenly your self righteousness rears up and you accuse the one who called it to your attention of getting personal. In that you are correct, but you virtually demand it, since after all it is all about you, right? It got tiresome long ago. Could you perhaps shatter your personal paradigm and just answer the questions instead of a rant about Rome? I'm done playing your game, which seems to be about you, instead of the subject matter.
So I will ignore you until you answer the question:

In his last two posts Nickman has made a cogent argument for the fact that we humans can and have rightfully judged the 'morality' of the God of the Bible, and specifically mentioned slavery.

Divine Insight has made the case that Jesus, as a human, also judged the laws of the Bible.

Your response is to ignore these points and project onto Nickman this idea of atheists agreeing with (sexual) slavery when they have said the opposite.

You've constructed this claim that atheists believe in sexual slavery out of nothing, it's as if you pulled it out of your own . . . uh . . . imagination. You certainly couldn't have extracted it from something they said.

Instead you go on a tirade about atheists supporting prostitution. Did an atheist here suggest prostitution was moral? Did anyone on this forum suggest that?

Several of us have shown that we humans can and should judge the morality of a god of genocide and slavery and that Jesus himself promotes a higher morality (tho' I don't recall he says much about slavery). And your response is to bring up, out of the blue, your fantasy about 'sexual slavery.'
Is this more of your projection?

[stubbornone]

From Post 130:

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

That depends on what you mean by "moral gene". Does the gene need to act in a moral fashion, or does the gene's expression result in a more moral individual. Upon who's moral authority are we to determine such things? I contend that as we look at humans, a clearly social species (with expected outliers), we should expect being prosocial to be, if I may, the "highest form of morality". With that in mind...

...
Individuals who are homozygous for the G allele of the rs53576 SNP of the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene tend to be more prosocial than carriers of the A allele.
...

Your claims are nothing more than creative writing.

I typically prefer the writings of the creative over the writings of the ignorant.

When YOU are claiming that there is a genetic basis for morality, YOU can explain how it works.

The human genome has been mapped, and provides no clues as to how your thesis might operate.

Thank you for reversing the burden of proof - as, once again, those who say there is, at best, limited genetic basis for morality, and then provides evidence that there is no evidence in the places we find it as proof positive (we can also add the death of dinosaurs because mammals developed the ability of higher cognitive reasoning and the ability to adjust to their environments to that case) and we are left with what is essentially a bald faced claim absolutely devoid of proof.

Thank you for the speculation though.

[stubbornone]

Agh, so the oft drug up subject of slavery is the atheists call to 'superior' morality - and now, once again, since we are engaging with selective memory ... lets take yet another journey down the lane of history shall we?

Lets start with Rome. Ever heard of Spartacus? How about the Roman Servile Wars?

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

Please, by all means, take a gander at that, and understand that this is what you advocate. Mass suicide.

Fell better? Feel morally superior yet?

Less that a hundred years before Christ we have a major slave revolt, indeed the Jews themselves had already been crushed several times by Roman Legions. The entire Roman Empire was built upon slavery, and the system of retaining that slave based order, from assassination to simple brutality, were immense. Advocating slave rebellion would not only get you killed in a hurry, anyone stupid enough to follow you would be killed right along with you in the most brutal way possible to ensure that the message would get through.

But heh, since atheists are seeking 'truth' through cogent arguments, its only fair at this point to mention that atheists are obviously in favor of mass suicide. Explains a lot about Jim Jones? I digress though ...

So, what do you do if you disagree with slavery AND doing something that will only result in a lot of needless death and only heighten the strangle hold on slavery?

Why, you would have to change THE VERY BASIS OF MORALITY ITSELF!!!!

In the time when people can do nothing, you would preach that those who are stuck in positions they cannot do anything about, accept what they cannot change and whatever hand we are dealt we do the best we can and seek to follow what is moral and right to the utmost of our ability.

We also slip into the narrative a little thing called equality.

Its worth pointing out that atheist contemporaries ACTUALLY wrote during the period as well. I mean here we have atheists listing Democritus as the #1 atheist of all time!

http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/

And yet, here is what he actually though: "He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not encompassing enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus ... d_politics

But heh, knowledge is power, and the most brilliant atheist of all time apparently supported slavery ... er, even as atheists attempt to shove slavery down Christian throats. Nice.

So, I suppose the more even more 'superior' minded could just advocate pointless rebellion? Perhaps you'd like to advocate the violent overthrow of Wall Street to redistribute wealth as well? I mean, its not like THAT VIOLENT action would result in any response either? So ... great moral picture atheist. Wonderful basis for claiming that atheism is intrinsically against slavery.

Now, lets move forward a bit to the ACTUAL beginnings of the abolition movement.

You remember that part about ALL men being created equal?

Well, it turns out that some people actually read it and attempted to understand it correctly (In sharp contrast to Democritus, who didn't apply it to women or slaves). The first to do so? Quakers.

One is left wondering where the high minded atheists were when those enslaved in backward mentalities and silly dress codes were the ones the first stumble across the precept that, although we make money off of slaves ... its wrong.

And on one side of the Atlantic, we see William Wilberforce (who was earlier reduced to a mere panderer to God rather than an honorable man driven by conviction) who is able to use reason and steadfast determination to drive an entire society to reject slavery write large through the full weight of the British government.

And what a momentous change that was!!! Rather than the full weight of state going into crushing slavery and establishing systems to maintain slaves as property, we have the full weight of state protecting slaves as equal!!!! Amazing what an idea planted centuries earlier can do from germination to full blossom.

On the other side of the Atlantic, we once again see the titanic struggle required to reduce slavery. Two Nations, both equip themselves to the hilt to defend and abolish slavery. More American blood is spilt in that war than any other war America has ever fought. Once again, the roots of abolition begin in with ... Qaukers, and then spread through the American Christian Community. The leaders of the abolitionist movement are almost invariably Christian of one sort of another, with atheist, despite their high mindedness, reduced to ancillary roles.

And at the end ... we have the reduction of slavery.

It took the instruments of state, of government to reduce the crime of slavery. And indeed we can say the same thing about the modern form of slavery, human trafficking - mostly for sexual services. ONLY the government can solve that problem.

Yet we do not have an actual discussion on slavery. We do not get an lessons of slavery and what to do about it. We do not get anything other than atheists stepping on the back of honorable men who fought, and often died, so (once again) they can pull selected quotes out of context to make themselves feel superior for the work of abolitionism done by others?

Nah, this common atheist barb, this deliberately misleading portrayal of atheism as anti-slavery and Christianity as pro-slavery is so deliberately ignorant of Christian doctrine and actual history that it can only be dismissed in the strongest terms possible.

It is exactly this - these flights of fancy and sheer arrogance that have made atheism the least trusted of all faiths - and belies any atheist claims to moral superiority in any way.

After all, simple honesty is a precept in every moral code I have ever seen. That it is totally lacking in atheism's slavery driven Crusade of superiority is telling ... and entirely relevant.

When you run around shoving slavery, of all things, down the throats of people around you BASED SOLELY ON A FAITH CHOICE (a deliberate ignorance of history) ... well, the constant keening of atheist cries of bigotry need to seriously examine themselves.

What else is seeing slavery in Christianity in defiance of history itself other than bigotry? Yet another 'superior' moral trait of atheists?

All of your posts seem the same. You make false allegations, ignore the rebuttal, refuse to answer the questions put to you and go on a long rant, the purpose of which seems pure narcissism, which you then project on to others. Then you refer to whomever responded, accusing him of playing the victim and 'running to the mods' when you violate the rules of civil debate.

When your personal attack gets called to your attention, suddenly your self righteousness rears up and you accuse the one who called it to your attention of getting personal. In that you are correct, but you virtually demand it, since after all it is all about you, right? It got tiresome long ago. Could you perhaps shatter your personal paradigm and just answer the questions instead of a rant about Rome? I'm done playing your game, which seems to be about you, instead of the subject matter.
So I will ignore you until you answer the question:

In his last two posts Nickman has made a cogent argument for the fact that we humans can and have rightfully judged the 'morality' of the God of the Bible, and specifically mentioned slavery.

Divine Insight has made the case that Jesus, as a human, also judged the laws of the Bible.

Your response is to ignore these points and project onto Nickman this idea of atheists agreeing with (sexual) slavery when they have said the opposite.

You've constructed this claim that atheists believe in sexual slavery out of nothing, it's as if you pulled it out of your own . . . uh . . . imagination. You certainly couldn't have extracted it from something they said.

Instead you go on a tirade about atheists supporting prostitution. Did an atheist here suggest prostitution was moral? Did anyone on this forum suggest that?

Several of us have shown that we humans can and should judge the morality of a god of genocide and slavery and that Jesus himself promotes a higher morality (tho' I don't recall he says much about slavery). And your response is to bring up, out of the blue, your fantasy about 'sexual slavery.'
Is this more of your projection?

Definition of irony:

The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

And your post is, if anything, humorous.

You just accused the entire history of the abolition movement as being 'a falae allegation', in fact publically accused me of using deliberately false claims in support of what? Another allegation of bigotry?

So, other than the biased declaration that Nickman, who is vacuously tossing out slavery ... a topic whose actual discussion you are skipping entirely (even as you introduce it to claim your moral superiority) ... is using argumentation .... and those who rebut are not ... what do you have other than a demonstration of bias?

Right nothing.

So, when you drag in highly emotional topics, and then don't want to support your silly emotional claim, you have three choices.

#1 - apologize for YET ANOTHER personal attack.

#2 - ACTUALLY back up your claim - provide evidence that anything I wrote was 'false' - in fact, lets involve the moderators since its clear one side of this debate has no intention of actually debating ... perhaps some moderator instruction is in order?

Besides, you are already reporting everything I write anyway - maybe direct involvement of the mods would settle some of these personal barbs and actually make you debate?

#3 - If you cannot handle the rebuttal of your positions, then its clear that a debate forum is not for you. Go ahead an withdrawal.

Enjoy.

Now, anyone else care to discuss how the history of abolition somehow makes atheists more moral than Christians? That is the line they are supercilliously advancing.

Anyone?

[stubbornone]

After all, God gave us a set of rules and rich history full of those who follow and get it both right and wrong, he gave us science to quantify his teachings and demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and none of this, not a shread, of any of it is found in empty, bland declaration that attempts to usurp the basis knowledge - because if you claim it, however weakly, that means that your position is fully evidenced and explainable and the opposite is not.

No, actually evolution evolved rationality and morality such as logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc. To ensure people who didn't understand or didn't have these qualities justice systems evolved to keep them away from the rest of us. Evolution also evolved brains wired for religion and belief and religions so that other people who didn't have these qualities would live according to them anyway because they believed they came from some god or higher authority.

Evolution did not involve one wit of human rationality. It is nothing more than trial and error, random mutation, and the long term survival of those minimally able to survive and reproduce better than their peers through time. That is it.

And in a social context in a society like ours those who behave according to the moral codes of evolution survive and reproduce and those who don't end up dead or in jail. Survival of the fittest, fittest being those who follow the moral codes. It doesn't matter if you follow the moral codes because you understand where they came from or why all that matters is that they are followed. Therefore moral people who have logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience and follow the Golden rule survive, and people who don't have these qualities act as if they do because their brains are wired for religion and belief so they just obey what they think their god wants them to do. Sheep following their shepherds just doing what they say instead of applying logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience and the Golden rule. Cults are just sheep following the wrong shepherds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

It's the eternal dance between believers and atheists. Atheists try to use logic, reason and common sense and explain reality to believers, believers don't understand logic, reason and common sense if they had they wouldn't have been believers in the first place. Remis.

And people in jail father no children do they? Criminals have no children before they are killed do they?

Indeed, if a society creates rules that drive this thing, how is it that 'evolution' which has no intelligence whatsoever, created these rules rather than human societies?

So, your statements are clearly at odds with facts.

Once again, using your own site, please explain animal behavior that is ANYTHING but altruistic? Like lion cubs being killed by male lions to induce heat in females faster ... hardly altruistic. And when our GENETIC argument rests upon BEHAVIOR ... our theory must encapsulate ALL behavior, not just the selected behavior that ignores contradictions.

Indeed, the 'evolution' of morality could be to many other things besides the evolutionary process of genetic selection. There are many theories out there, and many have better evidential support than your regurgitation of Dawkins.

There is a reason that Dawkins is a famous atheist ... rather than a famous biologist.

Genetic claims require GENETIC evidence. Please provide some.

IN the meantime, you may want to examine your statement in light of emotional condition known as arrogance:

"It's the eternal dance between believers and atheists. Atheists try to use logic, reason and common sense and explain reality to believers, believers don't understand logic, reason and common sense if they had they wouldn't have been believers in the first place."

Its funny that your deeply held but totally unevidenced (other than by the fact that someone plagiarized Dawkins on Wikipedia)is reason and logic, and reason and logic are not defined by the use of intelligent debate or the Hegelian dialectic, but whether or not someone blindly follows the atheist?

Well, then morality MUST be based on evolution ... otherwise you reject logic.

Here is something else to examine, its called an appeal to spite:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... spite.html

So, we have a known logical fallacy as the basis for your conclusion? Nice.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 135:

When YOU are claiming that there is a genetic basis for morality, YOU can explain how it works.

I am most certainly NOT responsible for educating you on how genes work.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered that in a social species, being sociable'd be a "moral". The National Academy of Sciences indicates I'm at least close to it here.

The human genome has been mapped, and provides no clues as to how your thesis might operate.

That you don't understand these mechanisms is an ignorance you'll hafta sort out yourself.

I feel confident I've presented sufficient evidence to have the observer conclude yours is a position borne of ignorance.

Thank you for reversing the burden of proof - as, once again, those who say there is, at best, limited genetic basis for morality, and then provides evidence that there is no evidence in the places we find it as proof positive (we can also add the death of dinosaurs because mammals developed the ability of higher cognitive reasoning and the ability to adjust to their environments to that case) and we are left with what is essentially a bald faced claim absolutely devoid of proof.

Again I say, I feel confident the observer will accept my take here.

That you reject the data is on you.

Thank you for the speculation though.

My speculation is that you will accept no argument that doesn't have your god front and center.

[Danmark]

#1 - apologize for YET ANOTHER personal attack.

#2 - ACTUALLY back up your claim - provide evidence that anything I wrote was 'false' - in fact, lets involve the moderators since its clear one side of this debate has no intention of actually debating ... perhaps some moderator instruction is in order?

Besides, you are already reporting everything I write anyway - maybe direct involvement of the mods would settle some of these personal barbs and actually make you debate?

As I said, I agree it is wrong of me to respond to your personal attacks, with a personal remark, even if it just to point out what you are doing. So indeed, I apologize, I should be above that, and simply report you without comment. But I don't like reporting, so what's a guy to do? Even complaining about people reporting you is a violation of the rules.

If you were a better debater, it would be fun to continue, but since images of battling with tar babies and rolling in the mud with pigs come to mind, I'll refrain.

[stubbornone]

From Post 135:

When YOU are claiming that there is a genetic basis for morality, YOU can explain how it works.

I am most certainly NOT responsible for educating you on how genes work.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered that in a social species, being sociable'd be a "moral". The National Academy of Sciences indicates I'm at least close to it here.

The human genome has been mapped, and provides no clues as to how your thesis might operate.

That you don't understand these mechanisms is an ignorance you'll hafta sort out yourself.

I feel confident I've presented sufficient evidence to have the observer conclude yours is a position borne of ignorance.

Thank you for reversing the burden of proof - as, once again, those who say there is, at best, limited genetic basis for morality, and then provides evidence that there is no evidence in the places we find it as proof positive (we can also add the death of dinosaurs because mammals developed the ability of higher cognitive reasoning and the ability to adjust to their environments to that case) and we are left with what is essentially a bald faced claim absolutely devoid of proof.

Again I say, I feel confident the observer will accept my take here.

That you reject the data is on you.

Thank you for the speculation though.

My speculation is that you will accept no argument that doesn't have your god front and center.

I would call this rank hypocrisy.

I asked you for genetic evidence, indeed pointed to the human genome project, and asked for a explanation of how the genetic evidence that we check, which indicates little support to your theory ... well, why is your theory viable at all then? Where we expect to find evidence ... its not there.

Your response is the highlight of arrogance, indicating that you need to educate me about how genetics work?

Once again, why is it atheists, who are educated by in large in the same schools we are, think that they are priviledged to insights that others are not based solely on their faith choice?

I got straight A's in every science class I ever took Joey. I understand the science, and I understand that arrogance on display in thinking that just because someone has faith ... they automatically don't understand science.

What you wrote was little more than an insult. Please try again.