TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

---

Stoning is a civic law, not a moral law. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a moral law.

Now, what is the objectively moral scientific response to the evil Longhorn tribe that wants to exterminate your people?

---

Back up a step and don't harm them in a way that makes them seek your extermination. If that doesn't work seek allies so that the battle cannot be won by the Longhorns under any circumstances; if they recognize that and back down then no one is harmed. If they don't then your alliance will end the battle quickly and reduce harm that way. Not every correct moral decision is without cost, C. S. Lewis pretty much made a living on that.

---

They seek your extermination because they want your land and hunting grounds. Other tribes have more reason to ally with the Longhorns than with you - the Longhorns will offer half your land once you are exterminated, but what do you have to offer for an alliance?

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

---

Stoning is a civic law, not a moral law. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a moral law.

Now, what is the objectively moral scientific response to the evil Longhorn tribe that wants to exterminate your people?

---

Back up a step and don't harm them in a way that makes them seek your extermination. If that doesn't work seek allies so that the battle cannot be won by the Longhorns under any circumstances; if they recognize that and back down then no one is harmed. If they don't then your alliance will end the battle quickly and reduce harm that way. Not every correct moral decision is without cost, C. S. Lewis pretty much made a living on that.

---

They seek your extermination because they want your land and hunting grounds. Other tribes have more reason to ally with the Longhorns than with you - the Longhorns will offer half your land once you are exterminated, but what do you have to offer for an alliance?

---

Well you can keep moving the goalposts to make everyone else on the planet a dick. The fact is that these situations have played out before and we all learned that altruism is the long term solution. If Land Thieves and Purple Aggy ally with Longhorns they'll just have to deal with them eventually where the rules are kill or be killed. I offered a different way out.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

---

I have been reading. Your contributions certainly don't make the mark, but curtpenn and sam made some good posts.

Still, my point remains salient. No one has changed their opinion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

---

I have been reading. Your contributions certainly don't make the mark, but curtpenn and sam made some good posts.

Still, my point remains salient. No one has changed their opinion.

---

So? It doesn't mean we are not better informed. And shock, you side with your team. Thanks for opening your mind.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

---

I have been reading. Your contributions certainly don't make the mark, but curtpenn and sam made some good posts.

Still, my point remains salient. No one has changed their opinion.

---

So? It doesn't mean we are not better informed. And shock, you side with your team. Thanks for opening your mind.

---

You claiming to be better informed has no value.

You did , however, prove my point, so thanks for that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

---

I have been reading. Your contributions certainly don't make the mark, but curtpenn and sam made some good posts.

Still, my point remains salient. No one has changed their opinion.

---

So? It doesn't mean we are not better informed. And shock, you side with your team. Thanks for opening your mind.

---

You claiming to be better informed has no value.

You did , however, prove my point, so thanks for that.

---

It has no value to you. I value information.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior based on wishful thinking.

For someone so wedded to some sort of notion that behavior evolves, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to grasp the notion that the God of Abraham has had to resort to what we might think of as extreme measures in order to shape the character of His Chosen in preparation for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation - buy you know all this; you just choose to ignore it and label it immoral and unimaginable to fit your agenda.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those of you just tuning in, there has been no change since the thread started.

---

In your opinion. Some good discussion has taken place while you weren't looking.

---

I have been reading. Your contributions certainly don't make the mark, but curtpenn and sam made some good posts.

Still, my point remains salient. No one has changed their opinion.

---

So? It doesn't mean we are not better informed. And shock, you side with your team. Thanks for opening your mind.

---

You claiming to be better informed has no value.

You did , however, prove my point, so thanks for that.

---

It has no value to you. I value information.

---

I value information, I simply don't confuse your opinion as fact the way you do.

"Objective truth?"
Give me some examples.

" Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.".
That's a good statement Atl

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Except your concept of "better" may be different from mine and is therefore arbitrary from the beginning.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior based on wishful thinking.

For someone so wedded to some sort of notion that behavior evolves, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to grasp the notion that the God of Abraham has had to resort to what we might think of as extreme measures in order to shape the character of His Chosen in preparation for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation - buy you know all this; you just choose to ignore it and label it immoral and unimaginable to fit your agenda.

---

Decisions made and based upon objective empirical evidence, are evidence based, not faith based.

Why would a god, such as the all loving god of Abraham go to all the trouble, and inflict all the suffering upon humanity just to complete some elaborate salvation scheme, when it is completely unnecessary?

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

---

Moral opinions are subjective and arbitrary when based upon faith, in the absence of evidence or fact. Moral opinions based upon evidence and fact are objective.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

---

Moral opinions are subjective and arbitrary when based upon faith, in the absence of evidence or fact. Moral opinions based upon evidence and fact are objective.

---

Opinions cannot be anything other than subjective. Simple logic.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior based on wishful thinking.

For someone so wedded to some sort of notion that behavior evolves, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to grasp the notion that the God of Abraham has had to resort to what we might think of as extreme measures in order to shape the character of His Chosen in preparation for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation - buy you know all this; you just choose to ignore it and label it immoral and unimaginable to fit your agenda.

---

Decisions made and based upon objective empirical evidence, are evidence based, not faith based.

Why would a god, such as the all loving god of Abraham go to all the trouble, and inflict all the suffering upon humanity just to complete some elaborate salvation scheme, when it is completely unnecessary?

---

Still confusing collecting data with the underlying opinions/assumptions you make when arbitrarily claiming the opinions are "objective". You don't get to claim that that which you value is "objective" over against what someone else values.

"Why would a god, such as the all loving god of Abraham go to all the trouble, and inflict all the suffering upon humanity just to complete some elaborate salvation scheme, when it is completely unnecessary? "

Pretty sure you know the reasoning behind "some elaborate salvation scheme" based on your past comments. If you don't, then I commend the pursuit of understanding to you.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

---

Moral opinions are subjective and arbitrary when based upon faith, in the absence of evidence or fact. Moral opinions based upon evidence and fact are objective.

---

Opinions cannot be anything other than subjective. Simple logic.

---

Objective is to be unbiased. If you're objective about something, you have no personal feelings about it.

Subjective means influenced by feelings, emotions or preferences.

Morals can be based upon the objective evidence of reality, or they can be based upon someone's subjective emotional pronounced preference.

If a doctor tells me my vision is impaired, that is based upon objective evidence that can be checked and re-checked by independent observers. We send people into space based upon objective determinations made and built from objective evidence, as opposed to subjective determinations made and built upon someone's feelings, emotions and pronounced beliefs about space. We don't pray them into space, we use science.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior based on wishful thinking.

For someone so wedded to some sort of notion that behavior evolves, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to grasp the notion that the God of Abraham has had to resort to what we might think of as extreme measures in order to shape the character of His Chosen in preparation for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation - buy you know all this; you just choose to ignore it and label it immoral and unimaginable to fit your agenda.

---

Decisions made and based upon objective empirical evidence, are evidence based, not faith based.

Why would a god, such as the all loving god of Abraham go to all the trouble, and inflict all the suffering upon humanity just to complete some elaborate salvation scheme, when it is completely unnecessary?

---

Still confusing collecting data with the underlying opinions/assumptions you make when arbitrarily claiming the opinions are "objective". You don't get to claim that that which you value is "objective" over against what someone else values.

"Why would a god, such as the all loving god of Abraham go to all the trouble, and inflict all the suffering upon humanity just to complete some elaborate salvation scheme, when it is completely unnecessary? "

Pretty sure you know the reasoning behind "some elaborate salvation scheme" based on your past comments. If you don't, then I commend the pursuit of understanding to you.

---

Quote:

---

Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts.

---

Sue I do. One is data driven and the other is based upon perception.

Quote:

---

Still confusing collecting data with the underlying opinions/assumptions you make when arbitrarily claiming the opinions are "objective". You don't get to claim that that which you value is "objective" over against what someone else values.

---

You do when one has data driven evidence. Otherwise, you would give equal weight to the superstitious values of Voodoo, Christianity, and Hindus. Take prayer as an example. There is objective evidence that prayer is ineffective, yet people persist in subjectively believing it is effective.

Quote:

---

Pretty sure you know the reasoning behind "some elaborate salvation scheme" based on your past comments. If you don't, then I commend the pursuit of understanding to you.

---

I was asking for an answer to a rhetorical question. Pretty sure you know the answer. There is no reason for a loving all powerful god to create a universe indifferent to the plight of humanity and other life forms. The reasoning is that of primitive people, in an attempt to understand, find meaning and purpose, to attribute what they don't understand to a god, and organize those subjective ideas into a religion. It is nonsense that has been refined and handed down within cultures through the centuries.

Lots of minds being changed

Tex said:

---

Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.

Quote:

---

Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?

What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

Quote:

---

Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?

---

This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?

Quote:

---

And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?

---

First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?

It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.

---

You wrote:

Quote:

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

---

Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.

Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?

Quote:

---

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

---

The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.

Quote:

---

This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?

---

You avoided answering the question: you said some things should always be immoral. Should stoning be? I was using your own rational humanistic morality approach to show that you contradict yourself.

Quote:

---

First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?

---

This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!

Quote:

---

It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life.

---

It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?

Quote:

---

My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders

---

Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

If "morality" is itself arbitrarily determined, then any evidence-based approach does nothing to lessen the arbitrariness.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

---

Moral opinions are subjective and arbitrary when based upon faith, in the absence of evidence or fact. Moral opinions based upon evidence and fact are objective.

---

Opinions cannot be anything other than subjective. Simple logic.

---

Objective is to be unbiased. If you're objective about something, you have no personal feelings about it.

Subjective means influenced by feelings, emotions or preferences.

Morals can be based upon the objective evidence of reality, or they can be based upon someone's subjective emotional pronounced preference.

If a doctor tells me my vision is impaired, that is based upon objective evidence that can be checked and re-checked by independent observers. We send people into space based upon objective determinations made and built from objective evidence, as opposed to subjective determinations made and built upon someone's feelings, emotions and pronounced beliefs about space. We don't pray them into space, we use science.

---

Your vision isn't morals. Sending people into space isn't morality.

You have to choose what "morality" means in the first place. Therein lies the subjectivity.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Opinions are not devoid of evidence or fact. When humans are the determinator of their moral framework it is always arbitrary because well being is a subjective standard and the complexities of the relationships between humans and nature are many times conflicting and/or bound with uncertainties.

---

Moral opinions are subjective and arbitrary when based upon faith, in the absence of evidence or fact. Moral opinions based upon evidence and fact are objective.

---

Opinions cannot be anything other than subjective. Simple logic.

---

Objective is to be unbiased. If you're objective about something, you have no personal feelings about it.

Subjective means influenced by feelings, emotions or preferences.

Morals can be based upon the objective evidence of reality, or they can be based upon someone's subjective emotional pronounced preference.

If a doctor tells me my vision is impaired, that is based upon objective evidence that can be checked and re-checked by independent observers. We send people into space based upon objective determinations made and built from objective evidence, as opposed to subjective determinations made and built upon someone's feelings, emotions and pronounced beliefs about space. We don't pray them into space, we use science.

---

The status of your eyes or space travel are not a moral or ethical choice. Fairness, equity, justice, right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc., are replete with subjectivity. Science is simply a data point that is evaluated in a matrix that can/does involve emotion, bias, prevailing thought, social structure, etc. Humanism is even more subject to it as humans are the center point of guidance.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Except your concept of "better" may be different from mine and is therefore arbitrary from the beginning.

---

Sure. Until we apply evidence based methods of harm reduction.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Except your concept of "better" may be different from mine and is therefore arbitrary from the beginning.

---

Sure. Until we apply evidence based methods of harm reduction.

---

And"harm reduction" is another subjective measure, as long discussed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.

Quote:

---

Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?

What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

Quote:

---

Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?

---

This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?

Quote:

---

And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?

---

First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?

It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.

---

You wrote:

Quote:

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

---

Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.

Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?

Quote:

---

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

---

The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.

Quote:

---

This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?

---

You avoided answering the question: you said some things should always be immoral. Should stoning be? I was using your own rational humanistic morality approach to show that you contradict yourself.

Quote:

---

First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?

---

This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!

Quote:

---

It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life.

---

It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?

Quote:

---

My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders

---

Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

---

Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.

Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?

---

John 8:7 "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." There is no reference to it being the same sin. This concept would apply to any sin worthy of stoning under Yahweh's law. Either it was always wrong, or Yahweh changed his mind in this case, which means Yahweh is morally inconsistent. The verse doesn't say why he did not stone her himself, so you don't really know why. Besides, he wasn't crucified yet, so there was no atonement as a basis for forgiveness. morally inconsistent. Mathew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christians and Jews don't stone today, because they believe it immoral. Somewhere morals changed.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

---

The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.

---

Killing innocent women and children is effectively murder. It makes no difference to them if it is "murder" or "killing." An OT/NT god that orders killing is morally inconsistent with other parts of the OT/NT. Especially, since being all powerful, he would have the power to resolve the issue without killing women, children or anyone. I would submit that it is immoral for a god to give life, subject it to sufferings of the world, and take take all on a whim to satisfy his own vanity.

Quote:

---

This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!

---

You made presumptive statements about the existence characteristics of a god. I just pointed out there is no objective evidence to support that belief. I don't have to presume his existence to point out the flaws in someone else's beliefs about the existence of a deity.

Quote:

---

It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?

---

It's far more likely that no such god exists, except in the minds and written scrolls of primitive men. Your statement at one time may have made sense to some primitive, superstitious people, of limited understanding. Today we have enough knowledge of the universe to understand such religious reasoning is flawed and internally inconsistent with its own beliefs and teachings. You should be able to see that the OT/NT god could have created the same conditions of the hereafter, with all his people in the same condition a presently believed, dispensing the need for all of the suffering, "sinning', and eternal punishments. Why would any god do that, unless that god is mean-spirited, and psychopathic. And what about all the other gods and religions out there. No one religion has as superior claim over others. They're all equally flawed, and largely believed through accident of birth locality.

Quote:

---

Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.

---

Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition. Objectively based morality. Moral determinations without objective empirical evidence are subjective by definition. Foregoing data driven evidence in favor of religious beliefs, faith in the supernatural, without objective empirical evidence, is subjective by definition. Subjectively based morality. Nothing more.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of being created in the Image of God. We can both make all the assertions we wish, but I'm willing to acknowledge they are opinions. You seem to struggle with that. Religion is just one of very many variables that sorts people into "our kind". It could be argued that it is far from the largest determinant in a macro sense. My take on history is that it is often more a pretense or justification for something more deep seated. The greatest conflicts in terms of destruction and lethality since the mid 19th century had next to nothing to do with religion.

Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is makes it all the more imperative to maximize the success of myself, my tribe, and my kind. Who cares about the moral and ethical treatment of "the other" since there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in the first place. See how that works?

---

Morality is an evolved characteristic, and has nothing to do with the image of any god. In Jewish folklore, the god of Abraham has condoned and ordered some of the most immoral acts imaginable. This calls into question the morals of their god.

Moral and ethical treatment of others is not a universal truth narrative of religion. What you describe is more of a religious characteristic, as opposed to a characteristic of a humanist science of morality approach to moral questions. Your premise that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics is wrong. Moral questions can be framed and considered from an objective humanistic scientific approach. You'll get a lot more peace, equity and fairness around the world under this method, as opposed to the subjective, arbitrary and conflicting morals of the religious around the world.

---

Still confusing your opinions with objective truth. Not contesting that moral questions can be framed and considered from some sort of data-driven approach. Just asserting that you have zero proof that this mode is any less faith based than one based on religious precepts. You believe it will result in some sort of utopian state. I believe we will reap the whirlwind as humans are inherently tribal and hierarchic and will never embrace some arbitrarily imposed standard of behavior.

---

Neither of us have made any claims to a utopian state; we both wish for better. Evidence based approaches to morality lessen the arbitrariness, they do not increase it.

---

Except your concept of "better" may be different from mine and is therefore arbitrary from the beginning.

---

Sure. Until we apply evidence based methods of harm reduction.

---

And"harm reduction" is another subjective measure, as long discussed.

---

Harm reduction can be objectively measured: were there more or less injuries/ODs/job losses/whatever after the policy was implemented. You can have a subjective discussion about how best to proceed, but you can certainly measure harm reduction. And if you can make it objective, you can use it as a valuable tool.

"Harm reduction" as a term is subjective.

Spin all you want, that will remain the case.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Harm reduction" as a term is subjective.

Spin all you want, that will remain the case.

---

Is there anything in the world you would label as objective? The type of data analysis I'm talking about makes your phone work, saves kids from preventable diseases, etc. It is objective by by any measure.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Harm reduction" as a term is subjective.

Spin all you want, that will remain the case.

---

Is there anything in the world you would label as objective? The type of data analysis I'm talking about makes your phone work, saves kids from preventable diseases, etc. It is objective by by any measure.

---

Sure, there are lots of things, objects for example, which can be accurately labeled as objective. You cannot, however, label moral or ethical concepts objectively.

Harm for example, is a very subjective word. I may say it is harmful for diseases to kill animals, especially people. But from a different point of view, disease can make a population resistant to other infections and improve the immune system. Harm is subjective.