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]

[Artie]

Previously you said that this golden rule is only for things that have brains, and excused all non human animals and plants from this, and "faulty" humans. But now you say it does apply to Bacteria

Yes isn't it interesting? I had no idea about this before I found these articles.

"A team of researchers doused an Escherichia coli colony of with a non-lethal dose of antibiotics. Not surprisingly a few cells carried mutations that allowed them to survive. But rather than taking over the colony, these mutant cells began secreting a molecule called indole, which turns on pumps that push drugs out of the cell. Other E. coli, which stop producing indole in times of stress, soaked up the molecule and were able to fight off the antibiotic, the team reports online today in Nature. The mutants did not need to produce indole to survive. They were simply working for the greater good."

In other words they treated others according to the Golden Rule. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself and showing altruism as defined as "the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others." It would appear that when we use expressions like altruism and the Golden Rule we are describing with words behavior already coded for in the genome of bacteria.

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/09/scie ... c-bacteria

Another article:

"Altruistic bacteria may change how we battle antibiotic resistance"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ndUuYKSq4I

[Artie]

You seem to be explaining why the societies have grown to behave in a certain way. I am asking why we have grown to hod certain values, the two are entirely different.

They are? How so?

[JohnA]

Previously you said that this golden rule is only for things that have brains, and excused all non human animals and plants from this, and "faulty" humans. But now you say it does apply to Bacteria

Yes isn't it interesting? I had no idea about this before I found these articles. It turns out that behavior I previously thought evolved is already coded for in the genome of Escherichia coli and other bacteria.

"A team of researchers doused an Escherichia coli colony of with a non-lethal dose of antibiotics. Not surprisingly a few cells carried mutations that allowed them to survive. But rather than taking over the colony, these mutant cells began secreting a molecule called indole, which turns on pumps that push drugs out of the cell. Other E. coli, which stop producing indole in times of stress, soaked up the molecule and were able to fight off the antibiotic, the team reports online today in Nature. The mutants did not need to produce indole to survive. They were simply working for the greater good."

In other words they treated others according to the Golden Rule. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself and showing altruism as defined as "the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others."

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/09/scie ... c-bacteria

Another article:

"Altruistic bacteria may change how we battle antibiotic resistance"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ndUuYKSq4I

This is evidence for 'evolution' - something is there to help with survival.
It does not say it is the Golden rule. You already concluded it is, and you are now trying to justify it. That is not how science works, it is how a biased works.

I want the journal that says this golden rule exists. And you have not given me this. I suspect it has to do with not formulating your claim or your argument. So we need to get that first.

I read somewhere that you have no opinion on a god/gods. (Am I correct, or maybe this was someone else?.)
I do not find that plausible either. You either lack a belief or not. There is no in-between. You can not 'not know' if you lack a belief or not. Based on this (your opinion on a god/gods that you do not have/hold , hu? Having no opinion is an opinion?), I can tell I am in for a difficult debate.

Can you please state your claim regarding this Golden rule clear please. Do reverence:
Who (animals, humans, plants, non-faulty humans, other, or combination of, etc.) does it apply to?
Has it evolved, or now built in after this "who" evolved, or has it been built in from the start (that 1st universal ancestor)?
Define what you mean with universal or objective. Set the scope and the boundaries. I.e. What classifies something, living things, to qualify for it or not.
Define what you mean by rule. What happens if someone does not follow this rule. What are the consequences, which authority are enforcing this rule.

Once you defined your claim, can you please offer me your argument. And we need to check if your argument is valid. And once we have done that, please present me your evidence for each of your premises to support your conclusion of your argument. That would make your argument valid and sound.

I'm patiently waiting.

[Bust Nak]

I used to be an atheist, and I did not believe there was such thing as morality. I believed that what I did in secret stayed in secret, the universe did not know or care about what I did. The idea that there was a sky daddy that cared about me and my actions, violated everything that I knew about physics, chemistry, biology etc. The only thing that concerned me, with regarding morality, was political correctness.

Which kinda explains your constand misrepresentation of our position. Can you accept that atheists don't have to think like you did? Can you also accept that the majority of atheists don't think like you did? Last I check almost none of us are moral nihilist, and minority are moral non-cognitivists.

I used to think like this...

You are right. Evolution can't make things right and wrong - this is because there is no such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense.

But, now it is impossible for me to think that there is no right and wrong, it is just too obvious to me that there is, and I really struggle to understand why others can't see it.
When I was an atheist, no one ever tried to convince me that there was any morality, but I am sure it would have been a very tough sell, that is why I try not to be too hard on those who do not see it.

You are doing it again. No such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense, doesn't mean no such thing as right and wrong, nor does it mean no such thing as actually right and wrong. You are implying anything other than your vision of right and wrong is not actual or not real. Stop it.

It's like me telling you that because morality is subjective, and you don't believe in subjectivism, you don't actually believe anything is actually wrong, and I really struggle to understand why you can't see that what the Nazis did was actually wrong.

[NoisForm]

...You guys are the one making this claim that the Golden rule exists and are "built-in or evolved.

...You claim it has, that this golden rule exists (other than a rule of thumb or wishful thinking).

You have the burden of proof here, not me.

Please quote where I have made either of these claims (hint; I didn't). I responded directly to one thing, and one thing alone;

Artie's claim was this;

they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.

...and your response to that claim was;

How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?

Clearly, you asked for 'reference to peer reviewed info' that supports his claim that 'behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.'

This is exactly what I provided for you, from multiple sources. You are now arguing nonsense (mostly straw men at this point) for the sake of arguing, and being deliberately blind to what I have presented (i.e.; exactly what you requested). Until you're able to acknowledge this, we're done here. The vast majority of the rest of your post has no relevance at all to my post and the info you have ignored.

[Artie]

I want the journal that says this golden rule exists. And you have not given me this. I suspect it has to do with not formulating your claim or your argument. So we need to get that first.

I read somewhere that you have no opinion on a god/gods. (Am I correct, or maybe this was someone else?.)
I do not find that plausible either. You either lack a belief or not. There is no in-between. You can not 'not know' if you lack a belief or not. Based on this (your opinion on a god/gods that you do not have/hold , hu? Having no opinion is an opinion?), I can tell I am in for a difficult debate.

If you can say "I want the journal that says this golden rule exists" when everybody knows that the Golden Rule has existed for thousands of years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule and then suddenly out of the blue present a totally unrelated confused and incoherent paragraph about gods it's pointless of me to present a coherent answer. When you produce a rational coherent post I will answer it. Try stating your point clearly and coherently in a few rational sentences.

[JohnA]

I want the journal that says this golden rule exists. And you have not given me this. I suspect it has to do with not formulating your claim or your argument. So we need to get that first.

I read somewhere that you have no opinion on a god/gods. (Am I correct, or maybe this was someone else?.)
I do not find that plausible either. You either lack a belief or not. There is no in-between. You can not 'not know' if you lack a belief or not. Based on this (your opinion on a god/gods that you do not have/hold , hu? Having no opinion is an opinion?), I can tell I am in for a difficult debate.

If you can say "I want the journal that says this golden rule exists" when everybody knows that the Golden Rule has existed for thousands of years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule and then suddenly out of the blue present a totally unrelated confused and incoherent paragraph about gods it's pointless of me to present a coherent answer. When you produce a rational coherent post I will answer it. Try stating your point clearly and coherently in a few rational sentences.

Right.
Everything exists until shown not to? God and the Golden rule too? Or is it just your opinion that you have no opinion on a god/gods existence? This type cognitive signals from you says much more about your ability to deliver than you think.


You have the burden of proof. You know what to do. Define your claim and your argument. You clearly have no peer reviewed scientific journal(s) to show this rubbish Golden rule exists (other that just just wishful thinking, like gods). You can not define things into existence.

Get working on it or concede.

[JohnA]

...You guys are the one making this claim that the Golden rule exists and are "built-in or evolved.

...You claim it has, that this golden rule exists (other than a rule of thumb or wishful thinking).

You have the burden of proof here, not me.

Please quote where I have made either of these claims (hint; I didn't). I responded directly to one thing, and one thing alone;

Artie's claim was this;

they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.

...and your response to that claim was;

How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?

Clearly, you asked for 'reference to peer reviewed info' that supports his claim that 'behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.'

This is exactly what I provided for you, from multiple sources. You are now arguing nonsense (mostly straw men at this point) for the sake of arguing, and being deliberately blind to what I have presented (i.e.; exactly what you requested). Until you're able to acknowledge this, we're done here. The vast majority of the rest of your post has no relevance at all to my post and the info you have ignored.

Right. Now you are denying that we are debating if this golden rule exists or not. So you are not claiming that this Golden rule exists (other than just wishful thinking, a definition)? Is that why you tried to project this golden rule onto evolution? All of this is recorded in our posts. You are most welcome to deny it.

We have been discussing the existence of the Golden rule as a 'product' or 'part' of evolution, both of you projected this.

That is the scientific journal that I want. If your can not produce it, then you are in error to say this rule exists as something that evolution gave us (or whoever you trying to claim got/has it).

I see your post above as your way of conceding; this Golden rule is just pure wishful thinking, a definition of 2 words strung together, nothing more. And I will accept your concession if you are now indeed offering it.

If not, then formulate your claim and present your argument (with evidence).

Your move.

[instantc]

You seem to be explaining why the societies have grown to behave in a certain way. I am asking why we have grown to hod certain values, the two are entirely different.

They are? How so?

Yes Artie, they are. For example, one can recognize the golden rule as morally good, and yet he may choose to never follow it for selfish reasons. One can also not recognize the moral value of altruistic behavior, but yet he might act in accordance with the golden rule for some practical reason.

[olavisjo]

.

What I do not understand is why you feel the necessity to believe this. The idea that a 'sky daddy' would care about what you do in private, particularly assuming what you do does not affect others seems gratuitous, completely unnecessary to any moral system.

Jeffrey Dahmer used to eat people in private (I prefer the word secret), and as long as it remained in secret it was not immoral, there was no invisible 'sky daddy' to witness what he did, and if he had not been caught (as many others were not) then he would have been absolutely innocent of any immorality as far as anyone is concerned.

This is the part of secular morality that I disagree with, "you are free to do whatever you can get away with by stealth or brute force". Non-believers seem to have no problem with this. As you say it is 'unnecessary'...

• The idea that a 'sky daddy' would care about what you do in private, particularly assuming what you do does not affect others seems gratuitous, completely unnecessary to any moral system.