New film tackles evidence for evolution

[Jose Fly]

for man to do, of his own accord?

sure

If you have to put conditions on it, then it isn't objectively wrong, all the time, no matter what. Its morality becomes subjective to the conditions.

So basically you're saying that genocide isn't 100% objectively wrong, no matter what.

 

[resurrected]

If you have to put conditions on it, then it isn't objectively wrong, all the time, no matter what. Its morality becomes subjective to the conditions.

So basically you're saying that genocide isn't 100% objectively wrong, no matter what.

is it objectively wrong for a strain of bacteria to wipe out the less successful strain that it evolved from?


is it objectively wrong for a pride of lions to wipe out a pack of hyenas?

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists can never deal with the objection on the table. Arguing that an act can be right or wrong depending on circumstances does not show that morality does not exist.

In fact, arguing that an act is right or wrong based on circumstances relies on there being morality.

 

[Jose Fly]

is it objectively wrong for a strain of bacteria to wipe out the less successful strain that it evolved from?


is it objectively wrong for a pride of lions to wipe out a pack of hyenas?

I believe "genocide" specifically refers to the killing of humans.

 

[resurrected]

I believe "genocide" specifically refers to the killing of humans.

well, you're putting conditions on it, but ok


was it objectively wrong for the plague to kill half of europe's population?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists can never deal with the objection on the table. Arguing that an act can be right or wrong depending on circumstances does not show that morality does not exist.

No one's arguing that morality doesn't exist. The argument put forth by creationists is that the existence of "objective morality" somehow disproves evolution. So let's see if "objective morality" actually exists.

 

[Jose Fly]

well, you're putting conditions on it, but ok

No, I'm simply using the word as it is defined.

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

was it objectively wrong for the plague to kill half of europe's population?

If you're arguing for the existence of "objective morality" then that's a question for you. I don't believe such a thing exists, so it's an irrelevant question to me.

 

[resurrected]

and i already answered it in post 60 :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

and i already answered it in post 60 :idunno:

Right, by putting conditions on it, which removes it from the category of "objective". If genocide is objectively immoral, then the god of the OT is one of the most immoral entities in the history of the universe.

 

[rexlunae]

So when I presuppose objective morality, that sounds like subjective morality to you?

When you describe it as unobservable, it sounds subjective.

Asserting it is so is not a rational response. We need reasons.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Demonstrate? It's a non-physical reality. It cannot be weighed or measured, it has to be accepted.

So, something that isn't influenced by personal feelings or opinions can only be accepted by the individual? That seems inherently subject to personal feelings and opinions.

No Stripe. You have to do better than that.

Nope. Morality is necessarily an objective reality, otherwise it is just opinion. You asserting otherwise is not a counter to what we say.

You're the one making the assertion. You're the one saying that morality must be objective or it is only an opinion. You go ahead and offer some support for that idea, if you can.

 

[resurrected]

Right, by putting conditions on it, which removes it from the category of "objective".

by limiting morality to men, i'm putting conditions on it?

no more than you limiting it away from animals

If genocide is objectively immoral, then the god of the OT is one of the most immoral entities in the history of the universe.

you might as well claim that the bacteria that caused the plague were immoral :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

When you describe it as unobservable, it sounds subjective.

This is lame, Rex. repeatedly making assertions based on what you feel is a waste of time.

So, something that isn't influenced by personal feelings or opinions can only be accepted by the individual? That seems inherently subject to personal feelings and opinions. No Stripe. You have to do better than that.

I did do better than that. Your summation has no relationship to what we have been discussing or what I have said.

You're the one making the assertion. You're the one saying that morality must be objective or it is only an opinion.

:BRAVO:

You noticed? However, your tu quoque attempt ignores the fact that my assertion is based on necessity, while your assertion is based on your opinion. It is necessary for morality to be objective, otherwise it is just opinion.

And you assert that morality is not objective, meaning that what is right and wrong is dependent upon people's opinions.

So either you agree with what I said or you show how it cannot be true. However, demanding that I give up what I believe without reason just does not cut it.

You go ahead and offer some support for that idea, if you can.

You already provided the definition. If you think morality is dependent on people's opinions, then you think morality is based on opinion. I think morality is objective -- that right remains right regardless of what you think.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion when your worldview is so obviously self-contradictory. All it serves to do is put distance between the challenge to evolution that you are desperate to avoid: If evolution cannot account for morality, it cannot be the only game in town.

 

[rexlunae]

:BRAVO:

You noticed? However, your tu quoque attempt ignores the fact that my assertion is based on necessity, while your assertion is based on your opinion.

My assertion is based on the definition of objective in comparison to what you are trying to pass off as objective.

And you assert that morality is not objective, meaning that what is right and wrong is dependent upon people's opinions.

"Dependent upon", sure. But not opinion in toto.

Perhaps I should explain to you what I view as morality so as to avoid further unnecessary straw men. Morality is the application of human values to real life situations. Human values are the rational derivatives of the necessary conditions of human thriving. Thus, both objective realities, such as human needs, and also more subjective things like the civil rights fall within the range of moral behavior.

This conception of morality can account for moral principles that are nearly universal, as well as moral ambiguity, moral progress and decline, and moral dilemmas. It neither renders morality fully mutable, such that any arbitrary notion could be adopted as moral, nor is it fully objective. And it fits any evolutionary account of the origin of human societies just fine, as morality is then tied both to the objective requirements of life, and the changing demands of culture. In fact, it explain why, despite significant similarities between the moral attitudes of different cultures, there persist many real differences as well. My sense is that this describes the moral Universe a lot better than any other system I've heard described.

 

[noguru]

Perfectly stated. :up:

It's not surprising you think that is perfect. I am glad we do not have to live by your standard of "perfect".

 

[Jose Fly]

by limiting morality to men, i'm putting conditions on it?

no more than you limiting it away from animals

you might as well claim that the bacteria that caused the plague were immoral :idunno:

So in terms of morality, you hold the god of the Bible to the same standards as bacteria.

That's sorta funny since the video in the OP argues that this same god is the source of "objective morality". That means the creationist argument against evolution is "Objective morality exists, and because objective morality cannot come from anywhere but our god, evolution is false. Oh, but our god is not held to these standards of objective morality...but they're still objective".

Like I said, this thread is yet another opportunity for fundamentalist Christians to put their ridiculous beliefs on display. :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

So in terms of morality, you hold the god of the Bible to the same standards as bacteria.

That's sorta funny since the video in the OP argues that this same god is the source of "objective morality". That means the creationist argument against evolution is "Objective morality exists, and because objective morality cannot come from anywhere but our god, evolution is false. Oh, but our god is not held to these standards of objective morality...but they're still objective".

Like I said, this thread is yet another opportunity for fundamentalist Christians to put their ridiculous beliefs on display. :chuckle:

They seem to like doing that. And then they wonder why the sound reasoning world just laughs at them.

But you know whenever their opinions become too much of a joke even for them, they can just wave the "God" banner again. And all the stupidity will magically disappear.

:rotfl:

 

[Jose Fly]

They seem to like doing that. And then they wonder why the sound reasoning world just laughs at them.

Not only that, but...

Creationist: Hey, we have this solid irrefutable case proving that evolutionary theory is wrong!

World: Really? Where are you going to publish it?

Creationist: Oh no, we made it into a low-budget movie!

World: :rotfl:

 

[resurrected]

So in terms of morality, you hold the god of the Bible to the same standards as bacteria.

:chuckle:

good one! :thumb:


no, in terms of morality, i recognize that it applies to neither of them

our god is not held to these standards of objective morality

right - now you're getting it! :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

So if this god tells me to kill you, that's ok with you?

 

[resurrected]

So if this god tells me to kill you, that's ok with you?

it's ok with me if you believe it :idunno: