Anything functions well enough if truth is not the goal. Since without God there is no actual right or wrong, only consistent with a preference or inconsistent with it, anything would work. That why I have said that once you untether morality from it's objective foundation it is free to be plugged into anything by preference.
It doesn't actually work. What is sucessful usually is determined through trial and error.
Of course it is a choice. I and everyone else who has ever lived has acted contrary to it by choice. Human history is defined by much less empathy that self interest. I am sure most people have it but it is primarily aimed at themselves.
I'm not talking about actions here. I am talking about the sensation of empathy. If it is a choice for you then it would classify you as a psychopath.
Again with God no rationalization is necessary. Without him we can rationalize anything and your claim that any individual rationalization is wrong is your opinion versus theirs with no actual truth to compare it to.
With god we can rationalize anything to fit his opinion or our opinion of what god's opinion is. It simply changes the argument not the fundamentals. The difference is now you are claiming your way is perfect because of god rather than a secular approach which doesn't claim to be perfect and can be subjected to amendments. And I"ll ask again...which god?
I agree we see human life as more important than the rest, but only if God exists is that rational, if he does not then we are merely engaging in self interested speciesm who is even less justifiable than racism. God cleans up so many things so neatly it's is no wonder that to abandon him seems to inexorably lead to moral insanity, a lack of reason, and paradoxes without Answers. Before you think I made a biased statement let me paraphrase what just one of hundreds of atheists have said along the same lines.
Nietzsche said that the 20th century would become the bloodiest century in history, and a general madness will prevail because of the philosophical ramifications of the death of god.
Ravi Zacharias Blames Darwin, Nietzsche for Moral Decline of Society
It has even exceeded his dire warnings, not only is the 20th century the bloodiest, it is bloodier than all the rest combined. Not only does madness rule but Nietzsche himself went insane.
Midnight rain did a good job talking about this one already. There is no moral decline and the basis for "the bloodiest" is more or less due to increased population mixed with more advanced warfare and globilization rather than actual moral decay of the individuals and societies. Crime has decreased. Murder rates have decreased. Overall people are just better to each other in secularized nations in current time than they ever have been in the past.
That human life and dignity is important. Usually implying equality of rights for individuals. This can usually be universally agreed upon. This is a basis in which we can construct morality. And the great thing about it is that it seems to be accepted in almost all secular societies. People struggle with the specifics of what is "equality" and who should be given it but generally it has been the direction that they head.
First of all growing wings did not occur in a geological blink of an eye, second wings have very slow incremental steps in their development, third wings allows for flight of a few tens of thousand feet. Our minds have sped us a thousand times faster, hundreds of times farther, have carried thousands of time the payload without even having to have organic wings ourselves. Birds poop on your car, we split atoms, birds cannot even protect their eggs, we can put a thousand pound explosive up a camels hind quarters from a thousand miles away, birds get lost when it's cloudy, we have satellites that navigate to the mm whether day or night. If you think other animals have anything that compares with our quantum leap in intelligence lets juts let it drop here. To me that is so absurd it is frustrates me without necessity.
Certain evolution did in fact change that quickly. Some even quicker. There is a scientist, I don't care to look him up but you can google him, who states he can bring us to the next level of human intellect (such as savant memory, mathematical ability and artistic skill) without the social debilitation that usually come with it and he says he could do it in less than 1,000 years (roughly 50 generations). Of course it is unethical to say the least and his method required forcing several different people to have test tube children with thousands and thousands of surrogates. So he has been shot down.
But there are several types of intelligence that animals beat us in. Chimpanzees for example have better memories than humans. Elephants do as well. I agree that humans have conceptual intellegence that far outweighs the animal kingdom but I simply don't think that its all that surprising. It started roughly 8 million years ago. That is a somewhat short amount of time but not really in terms of evolution. Bats developed their wings rather quickly for example. Birds did not. That dosen't mean that change cannot occur that quickly just because every single trait does not evolve that quickly.
That is not a theory and the fact it happens and often, is proven and provable in all the failed evolutionary theories that have been discarded. It also cannot possibly be any other way since we can not observe the 99.999999999999% of nature that occurred before we recorded it. We can't even hang on to a general model for evolution more than a couple decades.
Can you list a few fundamental changes or alterations to the understanding of the theory of evolution that isn't simply a more specific understanding of the same basic concept?
I had two points and both were of the type if X then Y. You must assume the existence of X in one and not in the other but I did not assume the existence of X as a fact. It is a conditional deduction. I almost never find anyone outside of engineering, philosophy, or programming that does not get thrown for loops given any conditional argument.
I don't recall any of your arguments ever throwing me for loops but the problem with your X then Y argument is that you haven't been able to substantiate either except with the other. and the X then Y arguments only work if the X is substantiated and it is reasonable then for Y to follow.
It was not my argument. It was yours. You ascribed an ought without a source. My proposition that if God then objective morality does have a source.
I think I have already explained this point in this post.
Now you are proving what I have said. I prefer not to be murdered but without God it is not an objective wrong to murder my. Violating a preference that exists objectively is not to violate a moral truth that exists objectively.
Which is why I am not arguing for an objective argument but for a reasonable one. I'll take reasonable over objective any day.
Yes it does. Wrong assumes an objective I ought not to. If God does not exist you might not prefer X but that does not entail I ought not to do X. Consider death row.
I don't think you understand what context means.
I hate semantic arguments and this one is not important enough to waste time on in this context. However did you know Jesus has more textual attestation than any other figure in ancient history?
Well aside from tge bible this is demonstrably false.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject
to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals
Google
How many definitions defying what you have said are enough?
How does this exactly counter anything that I have said?
It is as the definitions said. To pattern behavior on evolutionary principles.
That is Social Darwinism. This is not Secular Humanism. Look up the definition of Secular Humanism. Then compare it to Social Darwinism.
That is the human condition and no one should want to get over it.
Gonna give you a life lesson rather than a counter to your statement.
In the real world here as adults there is very often no actual right or wrong. Its just complexity. What actually is the best decision out of a bunch of seemingly good ones or seemingly bad oens? How do we actually know what is right? Often times its only after reflection on the consequences of events and decisions. From there we learn. We pattern ourselves to better ourselves or at least make better choices. The need for easy answers and black and white contexts of situations are childish. So long as you cling to them you will continue to have childish opinions on the world that are often wrong. So learning and having a better fundamental understanding of the world around you can lead you to making wiser decisions. That is what you have to rely no. That is how you develop effective opinions that lead to desired results.
