BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

So does rape by force Genghis Khan style.

---

Cite?

---

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/09/genghis-khan/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/2/mongolia-genghis-khan-dna/#close

---

Not even close. From your article:
"They suggest that the unique set of circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Mongol empire led to the spread.

"This is a clear example that culture plays a very big role in patterns of genetic variation and diversity in human populations,"

Rape is common in wartime, without any obvious evolutionary advantage. Harems, concubines, prima notte, those are ways for one powerful man to make a ton of babies. And power also increases the chance of survival of offspring; rape, not so much

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

Initiating force against another conflicts with your values? So ...no police, then??

---

Um what?

---

Your words.

---

Checking my words...

Yeah, no reference to police.

---

The reference to police was a logical conclusion to your words. This isn't difficult.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

So does rape by force Genghis Khan style.

---

Cite?

---

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/09/genghis-khan/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/2/mongolia-genghis-khan-dna/#close

---

Not even close. From your article:
"They suggest that the unique set of circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Mongol empire led to the spread.

"This is a clear example that culture plays a very big role in patterns of genetic variation and diversity in human populations,"

Rape is common in wartime, without any obvious evolutionary advantage. Harems, concubines, prima notte, those are ways for one powerful man to make a ton of babies. And power also increases the chance of survival of offspring; rape, not so much

---

You have just listed a number of additional ideas that contradict your altruism claim.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Not true, but so what if it is?

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

So does rape by force Genghis Khan style.

---

Cite?

---

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/09/genghis-khan/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/2/mongolia-genghis-khan-dna/#close

---

Not even close. From your article:
"They suggest that the unique set of circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Mongol empire led to the spread.

"This is a clear example that culture plays a very big role in patterns of genetic variation and diversity in human populations,"

Rape is common in wartime, without any obvious evolutionary advantage. Harems, concubines, prima notte, those are ways for one powerful man to make a ton of babies. And power also increases the chance of survival of offspring; rape, not so much

---

You have just listed a number of additional ideas that contradict your altruism claim.

---

No. Believe it or not there are exceptions in the world.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

I struggle to understand how you can seriously assert that " Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration". Just so wrong. Sermon on the Mount. Ten Commandments. On and on.

Speaking of the war on Christians, Chick-Fil-A has just announced they will no longer be making donations to those mean spirited and evil organizations, - Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army. Am very disappointed in Chick-Fil-A for caving.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-end-donations-christian-170506711.html

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Yes, they follow divine law without regard to the harm it causes.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

So much denial, such fear of wisdom!

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

So much denial, such fear of wisdom!

---

Actually, not holding grudges against those who would do hurt you i.e. turning the other cheek is a Buddhist tenet going back to 4th - 6th BCE. "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6 Buddha

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

So much denial, such fear of wisdom!

---

Actually, not holding grudges against those who would do hurt you i.e. turning the other cheek is a Buddhist tenet going back to 4th - 6th BCE. "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6 Buddha

---

Still in denial, I see.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Correct, that's why the law of the OT - which was not nearly so harsh - was a distinct improvement.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

---

I'm just saying it wasn't a unique or novel revelation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabic code is a key influence for law and morality in the Middle East, including Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Correct, that's why the law of the OT - which was not nearly so harsh - was a distinct improvement.

---

Yet OT law is harsh, not too much different than Islam.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabic code is a key influence for law and morality in the Middle East, including Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

---

Evidence?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Correct, that's why the law of the OT - which was not nearly so harsh - was a distinct improvement.

---

Yet OT law is harsh, not too much different than Islam.

---

TS proves he slept through his OT class.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

---

I'm just saying it wasn't a unique or novel revelation.

---

OK. Wasn't aware that uniqueness was some sort of criterion for truth. I think there was a fumble on this play, amigo.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

---

I'm just saying it wasn't a unique or novel revelation.

---

OK. Wasn't aware that uniqueness was some sort of criterion for truth. I think there was a fumble on this play, amigo.

---

If God was here before Hammurabi, is it possible that the Code of H originated from God?

Osodecentx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

---

I'm just saying it wasn't a unique or novel revelation.

---

OK. Wasn't aware that uniqueness was some sort of criterion for truth. I think there was a fumble on this play, amigo.

---

If God was here before Hammurabi, is it possible that the Code of H originated from God?

---

All Truth is God's Truth, so of course even a pagan is able to comprehend. I suspect you are familiar with the concept of General Revelation.

curtpenn said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

Sorry if I'm dense but I don't see what difference the dates make.

---

I'm just saying it wasn't a unique or novel revelation.

---

OK. Wasn't aware that uniqueness was some sort of criterion for truth. I think there was a fumble on this play, amigo.

---

If God was here before Hammurabi, is it possible that the Code of H originated from God?

---

All Truth is God's Truth, so of course even a pagan is able to comprehend. I suspect you are familiar with the concept of General Revelation.

---

That's great CYA work, but the FSM does it better: when he intervenes in the natural world he then supernaturally covers his tracks.

Ramen.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

That's great CYA work, but the FSM does it better: when he intervenes in the natural world he then supernaturally covers his tracks.

Ramen.

---

Quash is back to "disingenuous"

The fundamental hallmark of belief is how you act, not what you say about what you think.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fundamental hallmark of belief is how you act, not what you say about what you think.

---

IN short, you are what you do.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fundamental hallmark of belief is how you act, not what you say about what you think.

---

One of the great things about the FSM.