Monkey Morality

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Monkey Morality

Post #1

Post by SallyF »

Image


There is a Christian claim that humans are a "special creation"; made as miniature replicas of the mythological biblical deity, Jehovah.

Certain Christians claim that their morals come from this never-shown-to-be-anything-other-than-imaginary fantasy figure they declare to be "God" with a capital G.

We have had it on this forum that non-human animals do not have morals.

Please watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azGmZrsqJGo


And argue whether or not non-human animals have morals.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #2

Post by Purple Knight »

You can't really refute the religiosos here because they believe animals are meat robots.

Their answer to any animal behaviour - any - is going to be that it's just a robot designed to do that... a robot that happens to be made out of meat.

And could robots be designed to follow rules and enforce, unless they think they can get away with it? Sure.

I don't find you can really get round this claim to pry it up, so I've stopped trying.

It's a common belief among biologists as well. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't use tools. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't share information. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't have complex emotions.

Every one of these claims has been refuted, most lately to the tune of a talking gorilla crying over her dead kitten, yet the biologists on the side of the Freudians (human = no instinct, animal = all instinct) continue to believe animals are just meat robots.

...I believe humans are meat robots.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #3

Post by Wootah »

Purple Knight wrote: You can't really refute the religiosos here because they believe animals are meat robots.

Their answer to any animal behaviour - any - is going to be that it's just a robot designed to do that... a robot that happens to be made out of meat.

And could robots be designed to follow rules and enforce, unless they think they can get away with it? Sure.

I don't find you can really get round this claim to pry it up, so I've stopped trying.

It's a common belief among biologists as well. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't use tools. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't share information. Animals are meat robots, therefore they can't have complex emotions.

Every one of these claims has been refuted, most lately to the tune of a talking gorilla crying over her dead kitten, yet the biologists on the side of the Freudians (human = no instinct, animal = all instinct) continue to believe animals are just meat robots.

...I believe humans are meat robots.
I've never heard Christians argue animals are meat robots.

My issue has always been that humans seem to pick and choose which animals they like to get their morality from.

Shall we pick the duck, whose penis and vagina have evolved from the mass duck rape that occurs?

https://nypost.com/2017/05/06/dont-be-f ... -monsters/

Shall we pick the lion that kills all the cubs in the pack when it takes over?

The Bible notices there is no difference between man and animal if there is no God.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Monkey Morality

Post #4

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

Just for context which post said animals do not have morals?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #5

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

Moderator Comment
When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Post #6

Post by Mithrae »

Wootah wrote: Shall we pick the duck, whose penis and vagina have evolved from the mass duck rape that occurs?

https://nypost.com/2017/05/06/dont-be-f ... -monsters/

Shall we pick the lion that kills all the cubs in the pack when it takes over?
Why not our fellow primates? If our capacity to feel and act on empathy is an evolved trait (as seems to be the case) from which formal 'moral' principles such "do to others as you'd want done to you" are often derived, then there seems to be no need to appeal to God to explain human morality. Observing that some human societies, some primate groups and especially other animal species have developed behavioural patterns which don't emphasize or sometimes brutally contradict that empathic trait - for example, killing every man, woman and child from other tribal groups and taking over their land - doesn't undermine the evolutionary basis for morality nor support the claims of divine origin; quite the opposite in fact, on both counts. If human morality had divine origins we would expect either consistent morality across all people groups or a clear correlation between cultures' morality and their devotion to Yahweh, whereas in fact the people group which originated that deity is a prime exemplar of a brutal, Nazi-like regime of religio-tribal supremicism. But if the tendencies associated with morality were evolved and adapted traits, we'd expect to find different results in different circumstances, such as relatively savage and authoritarian ideas coming out of a semi-nomadic bronze age people group struggling to survive and find their own lebensraum, developing into more humane and eventually even cosmopolitan ideas given time and increasing civilization.
Wootah wrote: The Bible notices there is no difference between man and animal if there is no God.
Which verse/s are you referring to? I suppose it's true that most animals harm or kill each other, particularly within their own species, only when there are clear reproductive or resource-based reasons for doing so: Introducing god to the equation adds all kinds of new and inventive savageries more or less unique to humanity.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote:Shall we pick the duck, whose penis and vagina have evolved from the mass duck rape that occurs?
So this is, as far as I know, only mallards. However, because all domesticated ducks except the muscovy are descended from the mallard, they all have that nature in them, though domestic ducks tend to have all their aggressive urges somewhat suppressed.

I actually saw this happen a few years ago. Two paired male mallards teamed up to accost a male-female pair and repeatedly raped the female.

Apparently this is just what mallards do.

I often wondered if there was such a thing as an animal I wouldn't feel guilty for hunting, and I found one: Male mallards.

They're absolutely delicious. Waterfowl does have white meat, it's just darkly coloured. And the whole bird is somewhat oily. The white meat still has the texture of white meat, though.
Wootah wrote:I've never heard Christians argue animals are meat robots.
I have. It seems to be more prominent with Catholics. They believe animals don't have souls, period. Therefore, anything an animal does that happens to look like morality simply isn't. It's just a meat robot programmed to do that.

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Monkey Morality

Post #8

Post by SallyF »

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

Just for context which post said animals do not have morals?


EarthScienceguy
Guru


Joined: 16 Aug 2018
Total posts: 1082
Gender: Male
Likes received: 38
Likes given: 17
Usergroups: None

9195.59 tokens
[ MPG Donation ]
Post 47: Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:53 pm


Like this post

[Replying to post 43 by bluegreenearth]

Quote:
What makes you think the Christian moral system is superior to all other moral systems that are based on different objective sources? What is the objective source of your subjective preference for the objective morality proposed by Christianity over other objective moral systems?


What are these other objective sources you are speaking of? What would make you even believe that there is an objective source of morality? If man is not different than an animal then morality would be nothing more than instinct. There would be no such thing as right and wrong simply but simply what one feels about an action. When two animals are fighting over a mate there is thought of whether killing the other is right or wrong. When a praying mantis eats its mate it does not asks itself if it is right or wrong.

Morality must come outside of man. Animals are not capable of morality.


In the "Moral Lowdown" thread.


Quite false, of course.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #9

Post by SallyF »

Mithrae wrote:
Wootah wrote: Shall we pick the duck, whose penis and vagina have evolved from the mass duck rape that occurs?

https://nypost.com/2017/05/06/dont-be-f ... -monsters/

Shall we pick the lion that kills all the cubs in the pack when it takes over?
Why not our fellow primates? If our capacity to feel and act on empathy is an evolved trait (as seems to be the case) from which formal 'moral' principles such "do to others as you'd want done to you" are often derived, then there seems to be no need to appeal to God to explain human morality. Observing that some human societies, some primate groups and especially other animal species have developed behavioural patterns which don't emphasize or sometimes brutally contradict that empathic trait - for example, killing every man, woman and child from other tribal groups and taking over their land - doesn't undermine the evolutionary basis for morality nor support the claims of divine origin; quite the opposite in fact, on both counts. If human morality had divine origins we would expect either consistent morality across all people groups or a clear correlation between cultures' morality and their devotion to Yahweh, whereas in fact the people group which originated that deity is a prime exemplar of a brutal, Nazi-like regime of religio-tribal supremicism. But if the tendencies associated with morality were evolved and adapted traits, we'd expect to find different results in different circumstances, such as relatively savage and authoritarian ideas coming out of a semi-nomadic bronze age people group struggling to survive and find their own lebensraum, developing into more humane and eventually even cosmopolitan ideas given time and increasing civilization.
Wootah wrote: The Bible notices there is no difference between man and animal if there is no God.
Which verse/s are you referring to? I suppose it's true that most animals harm or kill each other, particularly within their own species, only when there are clear reproductive or resource-based reasons for doing so: Introducing god to the equation adds all kinds of new and inventive savageries more or less unique to humanity.

Thank you for this excellent response.


Religionists do come up with all sorts of notions why some form of other of "God" MUST exist.


But they NEVER provide a scrap of evidence that ANY version of "God" exists outside their own imaginations.


One of the notions is that humans could not possibly develop moral codes themselves.


Nonsense, of course.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #10

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

From Dust to Dust
Ecclesiastes 3:16 Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness. 17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. 18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. 19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? 22 So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?

I'll respond to the primate part later.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Post Reply