Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[10CC]

Are you sure they are YOUR wrists?

Well then there is that keith.

My eyesight after the operations has improved to 20/20 apparently but from here I can only see my wrists.

Why do you dislike my posts?
Or is it just me you dislike? (for questioning your 'MPG post')
Or my lack of incoherency?

I'm sorry JA but IMO your incoherency cannot be challenged. Your coherency leaves a lot to be desired.

I don't dislike you, I have never met you, I try not to judge people that I do know, far less those I don't know.

I find your posts rambling in the most incoherent manner possible. They grate on my consciousness (if that's possible), it may be a language thing but you seem to argue with people who are expressing the same views as you express and then become angry when they try to explain that situation to you.

How about if you start a new thread explaining what your belief's vis-a-vis god and religion are and ask others to offer a similar expose', I have no idea if the mods will allow it and won't guarantee my responding to such a thread.

I feel that you need to coherently put your position here and I don't think you have yet.

[Artie]

But some people have a different "morality as others. That is why some are in prison.
We also developed from a common ancestor. SO why does ALL life not have this "built-in"?

Are you serious...? Because we are all different and not perfect clones of course...

Morality is just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". There's nothing wrong about killing and eating to survive if that's how the animal evolved

What is ethics and empathy then? Why not kill animals,

We do kill animals and animals kill us. We are animals.

why do we have laws against that (well against some animals, not ants or flies)? Why not kill the "faulty" humans (I do not suggest this in any way ) ?

Because that would be murder. And murder is wrong because a human is obviously worth far more to society alive and helping others than dead.

We didn't "develop" this "Murder law" we just put into writing what was already hard wired into our brains.

Again, why do other animals kill their own kind then?

Because that's how they evolved.

By develop I actually meant to write it down. But we went further, we also wrote down that we should not kill the weak, even if they may harm the future survival of our species.

Of course you don't kill the weak. You cure them and make them strong which is a very good strategy for the future survival of our species. Hence hospitals.

We evolved morals like the Golden Rule because they helped us survive. If morals like the Golden Rule had been "faulty" we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Now you saying the golden rule evolved, but previously you said it was "built-in".

Both of course. We evolved brains with the golden rule so now we have it "built-in".

I agree that we got here (evolved to become humans) before we have "developed/wrote down laws". That is what tells me there is indeed something built-in or evolved in human animals.Other animals kill their weak or abandon them to die.

Some do some don't. Just depends on which strategy has been advantageous for survival.

The tomato seeds I sown did not all come up, some of the weaker ones died out or I killed it. This is clearly not the case in humans these days.

Of course not. If you had the technology to make those weaker ones strong and produce tomatoes you would have done that instead of killing them.

Am not convinced that this Golden rule exists. Like I said, I accept evolution, make no mistake. I just can not explain it. And this Golden rule can not be true, because of what Danmark did to me. Either he is at fault here, or the Gulden rule is false/faulty or both. It is clear that this Golden rule does not apply to all things that evolved.

Of course it doesn't. Every life form on the planet Earth aren't perfect clones of each other and what's good for the survival of one species may not be for another.

[JohnA]

Are you sure they are YOUR wrists?

Well then there is that keith.

My eyesight after the operations has improved to 20/20 apparently but from here I can only see my wrists.

Why do you dislike my posts?
Or is it just me you dislike? (for questioning your 'MPG post')
Or my lack of incoherency?

I'm sorry JA but IMO your incoherency cannot be challenged. Your coherency leaves a lot to be desired.

I don't dislike you, I have never met you, I try not to judge people that I do know, far less those I don't know.

I find your posts rambling in the most incoherent manner possible. They grate on my consciousness (if that's possible), it may be a language thing but you seem to argue with people who are expressing the same views as you express and then become angry when they try to explain that situation to you.

How about if you start a new thread explaining what your belief's vis-a-vis god and religion are and ask others to offer a similar expose', I have no idea if the mods will allow it and won't guarantee my responding to such a thread.

I feel that you need to coherently put your position here and I don't think you have yet.

Wow. That was a wonderful reply. Completely unexpected, like a birthday present.
I could dissect your post to expose the internal inconsistencies but why bother.
You already concluded / demonstrated that you have a different understanding of coherency than me or literature.
Anyway, what beliefs of mine are you interested in knowing?
I'm an atheist. Or shall I say: I'm atheist. And I think philosophy and religion (incl theology) are rubbish and belongs to antiquity. I have a science background, speak a few languages, can't read/write all of them....
I get annoyed when people troll me and have no patience for illogical irrational spin. Another annoying thing is when someone claim to believe to know my beliefs or other people's beliefs. I change my beliefs to fit reality. Why did you not point out any incoherence in my posts, if you claim it is? People are different, how boring will it be if everyone agrees on everything?
Debate is the worst kind of dialog there is to express opinions and positions. People disagree just for the sake of it, or else there will be nothing to discuss - like you and me now. I grant trust unconditionally, but if someone breaks it, then they have to earn it back.
What else is not clear about my beliefs? Is there something you wanna know, or was your note on my beliefs just a placeholder for boredom (given you will not participate, if I surrender to your thread request)? Am not sure what you think such a thread would achieve. People will not want to ask me anything, because they will expose their biased and faulty reason filters.
I have to be honest here. I think your post did exactly to me what mine do to you (if that is even possible).

But I have to end this and offer you that you can ask me anything you want, I will answer honestly. I suspect we both know the answer to that already. ..

[otseng]

Why do I feel a desperate urge to look for razor blades and hungrily eye my wrists whenever JA posts?

Is it just me?

Moderator Warning


This would be considered an indirect attack.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Aetixintro]

This is now a decided discussion under university considerations, all World academics included.

Even then, the Bible says, with your innermost conscience, the 10 Commandments and the Cardinal Virtues, all Catholic 7 of them!

If you bother to include: Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health with a bit of lie detectors and general science, also by police, adding Kantian Rule Making by his Categorical Imperative, see Kant's 3rd Critique, also as 80 pages short version.

Cheers!

[Goat]

This is now a decided discussion under university considerations, all World academics included.

Even then, the Bible says, with your innermost conscience, the 10 Commandments and the Cardinal Virtues, all Catholic 7 of them!

If you bother to include: Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health with a bit of lie detectors and general science, also by police, adding Kantian Rule Making by his Categorical Imperative, see Kant's 3rd Critique, also as 80 pages short version.

Cheers!

Really?? Care to back up your claims with sources? So many others disagree, I hardly think it is 'a decided discussion'.

[Danmark]

This is now a decided discussion under university considerations, all World academics included.

Even then, the Bible says, with your innermost conscience, the 10 Commandments and the Cardinal Virtues, all Catholic 7 of them!

If you bother to include: Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health with a bit of lie detectors and general science, also by police, adding Kantian Rule Making by his Categorical Imperative, see Kant's 3rd Critique, also as 80 pages short version.

Cheers!

What are you talking about? WHAT is being discussed 'under university considerations?' What are these considerations?
I confess I don't have a clue about what you are writing.

[Aetixintro]

WHAT is being discussed 'under university considerations?' What are these considerations?

Yes, the quality considerations! Not Donald Duck by Walt Disney! The valid academics...

Not the "if I'm allowed to write my own Bible with p*rn in it too?" and other verbiage.

Get it? Easy!

----
(Edit:) Plain: University = intelligence.

[Danmark]

WHAT is being discussed 'under university considerations?' What are these considerations?

Yes, the quality considerations! Not Donald Duck by Walt Disney! The valid academics...

Not the "if I'm allowed to write my own Bible with p*rn in it too?" and other verbiage.

Get it? Easy!

----
(Edit:) Plain: University = intelligence.

Sorry. That response adds nothing to the debate and fails to clarify what you are attempting to communicate.

[JohnA]

But some people have a different "morality as others. That is why some are in prison.
We also developed from a common ancestor. SO why does ALL life not have this "built-in"?

Are you serious...? Because we are all different and not perfect clones of course...

Morality is just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". There's nothing wrong about killing and eating to survive if that's how the animal evolved

What is ethics and empathy then? Why not kill animals,

We do kill animals and animals kill us. We are animals.

why do we have laws against that (well against some animals, not ants or flies)? Why not kill the "faulty" humans (I do not suggest this in any way ) ?

Because that would be murder. And murder is wrong because a human is obviously worth far more to society alive and helping others than dead.

We didn't "develop" this "Murder law" we just put into writing what was already hard wired into our brains.

Again, why do other animals kill their own kind then?

Because that's how they evolved.

By develop I actually meant to write it down. But we went further, we also wrote down that we should not kill the weak, even if they may harm the future survival of our species.

Of course you don't kill the weak. You cure them and make them strong which is a very good strategy for the future survival of our species. Hence hospitals.

We evolved morals like the Golden Rule because they helped us survive. If morals like the Golden Rule had been "faulty" we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Now you saying the golden rule evolved, but previously you said it was "built-in".

Both of course. We evolved brains with the golden rule so now we have it "built-in".

I agree that we got here (evolved to become humans) before we have "developed/wrote down laws". That is what tells me there is indeed something built-in or evolved in human animals.Other animals kill their weak or abandon them to die.

Some do some don't. Just depends on which strategy has been advantageous for survival.

The tomato seeds I sown did not all come up, some of the weaker ones died out or I killed it. This is clearly not the case in humans these days.

Of course not. If you had the technology to make those weaker ones strong and produce tomatoes you would have done that instead of killing them.

Am not convinced that this Golden rule exists. Like I said, I accept evolution, make no mistake. I just can not explain it. And this Golden rule can not be true, because of what Danmark did to me. Either he is at fault here, or the Gulden rule is false/faulty or both. It is clear that this Golden rule does not apply to all things that evolved.

Of course it doesn't. Every life form on the planet Earth aren't perfect clones of each other and what's good for the survival of one species may not be for another.

Are you serious...? Because we are all different and not perfect clones of course...

But if humans are not perfect clones, then we can not all have a perfect "Golden Rule' "built-in" in us. We will have a different "Golden Rule" "built-in".

And that does not tell me why Tomatoes do not have the same "Golden Rule" or a different one "built-in"

We do kill animals and animals kill us. We are animals.

You have not answered my questions - what is empathy and ethics then?
We have laws that prohibit killing of some animals.

Because that would be murder. And murder is wrong because a human is obviously worth far more to society alive and helping others than dead.

Am glad now that you agree that we can not just kill any animals. But how do you decide which humans are "worth" more to society than others?

Because that's how they evolved

So, some animals have a different "version" of this "built-in" Golden rule?

Of course you don't kill the weak. You cure them and make them strong which is a very good strategy for the future survival of our species. Hence hospitals.

Yes, we do not, but why not? Not all "faulty" humans can be cured (not yet anyway). We do not have a cure for many deceases and we actually have laws to prevent some of these "faulty" humans to procreate.

Both of course. We evolved brains with the golden rule so now we have it "built-in".

OK, so this Golden Rule was not present with the last universal ancestor. Human animals evolved to get brains and that is how the "Golden Rule' came to be, and is now built-in, but some humans have a different version of this Golden Rule?

Some do some don't. Just depends on which strategy has been advantageous for survival.

Ok, so again some animals have a different version of this Golden rule or not at all.

Of course not. If you had the technology to make those weaker ones strong and produce tomatoes you would have done that instead of killing them.

Agree. But this does not tell me why humans do not get rid of the "faulty" humans that we have no technology to "cure" the fault.

Of course it doesn't. Every life form on the planet Earth aren't perfect clones of each other and what's good for the survival of one species may not be for another.

Am not sure if you are in agreement here. I still see this as either:
some humans have a different version of the Golden rule, or
some humans are faulty and can not have a "global" Golden Rule, or
the Gulden rule is faulty, or
the Gulden rule is false, or
all of the above, or
some combination of the above.

Humans are not perfect clones, so how can there be a "global" Golden rule?