Evolution not God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are mecha!

 

[syo]

 

[Audie]

Greed can be beneficial in certain circumstances. So I think this is probably a genetic trait. However, greed can also be self destructive so culturally it becomes seen as a negative trait. So we end up with a conflict between our instinctual and cultural morality. Greed drives prosperity. I suspect if we went with "all greed is bad" society would collapse. Religion I see as part of the cultural influence on morals, there is also genetic, certain feelings of right and wrong we are born with , and experiential. Ideas of right and wrong we individually develop base on rules we rationally adopt for our personal benefit.

It is not always about the best or most optimal morality, though intellectual, it might be what we wish to strive for. We are constantly conflicted by these different sources for our morals. Sometimes genetics wins, sometime culture, sometimes experiential. What's best, I don't know if that is clear though I tend to lend toward experiential myself. However that limits itself to my personal life experience.

Anyway the point I meant to make is not what is best but how we ended up with these moral ideas/feelings of what is right and wrong. These are the moral conflicts I see within myself, genetic/instinctual, cultural/religious, experiential/intellectual. So for me I don't there to be a "God" to explain why morals exist.

Hopfully my morality is more beneficial than detrimental. Intellectually that is what I want but my not be what I get. There are a lot of causal influences I had no control over. So they "feel" right but may not always be the best.

Doing according to how one happens
to "feel" is dabbling in the sin of self indulgrnce.

 

[Valjean]

The moral that is based on "survival for the species".

I don't know about you moral, but my moral is based on the Biblical idea to love others as oneself, which is very old, was in the Biblical texts long before Jesus. And I think it is good in all times.

And this is exactly what many secularists find problematic. You believe morality is following [your] God's rules. You claim these rules are universal, eternal, and designed to promote some long range, divine plan.

Do the rules have a function, other than pleasing God?
These rules are sometimes detrimental. Many are neither fair nor just. They don't reflect public sentiment. There is no public input.They're not decided on by a legislature. They can't adapt to new conditions. Despite claims, they don't seem to be designed with life, liberty, prosperity or happiness in mind.

 

[Audie]

And this is exactly what many secularists find problematic. You believe morality is following [your] God's rules. You claim these rules are universal, eternal, and designed to promote some long range, divine plan.

Do the rules have a function, other than pleasing God?
These rules are sometimes detrimental. Many are neither fair nor just. They don't reflect public sentiment. There is no public input.They're not decided on by a legislature. They can't adapt to new conditions. Despite claims, they don't seem to be designed with life, liberty, prosperity or happiness in mind.

Its ridiculous, to me. We have no
concept of such "love" in our culture.

Love is in what you do for others,
and there's no possibility to extend that to
billions of strangers.

There's also no possibility for me to
" love" the sadist who raped me.
The very notion is insane.

 

[Nakosis]

Doing according to how one happens
to "feel" is dabbling in the sin of self indulgrnce.

Well, we all dabble.

 

[1213]

is, though, sadly typical of the crude binary thinking of fundamentalists.

I think this scripture fits perfectly to what you say:
Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
Romans 2:1

 

[1213]

Base your morality on the parts you happen to
choose to like. Killing everyone but the virgins,
and csrrying those off as sex slaves was groovy then, but not now. Iyo.

" love others as yourself " is nonsense.

Give it a try, as a woman being raped.
Me. I didn't try. I am not insane.

So, are you saying that if one loves others, it means they will rape others?

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that supports sex slavery. But, it is true that for evil people there is death in the Bible. Why do you think evil should continue forever?

 

[1213]

And this is exactly what many secularists find problematic. You believe morality is following [your] God's rules. You claim these rules are universal, eternal, and designed to promote some long range, divine plan.

Do the rules have a function, other than pleasing God?
These rules are sometimes detrimental. Many are neither fair nor just. They don't reflect public sentiment. There is no public input.They're not decided on by a legislature. They can't adapt to new conditions. Despite claims, they don't seem to be designed with life, liberty, prosperity or happiness in mind.

I didn't say "morality is following God's rules". I said my morality is based on the Biblical idea to love others. This means, by what is said in the Bible, I have learned what is good and right. My moral is based on reasoning what is good and Bible has helped me in forming that thought. And obviously if I do what is good, it is pleasing to God, but the reason for doing so is not only that, but that I want to do what is good, because I hope good things for others. And I think the best way for life, liberty, prosperity and happiness would be, if all would live by the moral that comes from the Bible and the idea to love others.

 

[Audie]

Well, we all dabble.

" we" don't all mistake it as a positive vsaue

 

[Audie]

So, are you saying that if one loves others, it means they will rape others?

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that supports sex slavery. But, it is true that for evil people there is death in the Bible. Why do you think evil should continue forever?

Even I am not that stupid

 

[Audie]

I think this scripture fits perfectly to what you say:
Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
Romans 2:1

You think a lot of very silly things.

 

[metis]

Before the 1960's, culture could do much more without government, all with little deficit spending.

That is a truly bizarre statement that any serious student of American history would well know is false. And if one truly has a problem with deficits, they certainly wouldn't be considering themselves Republicans, let me tell ya, as they have rung up more deficits than the Dems from Reagan on. The "Trump tax cuts" raised our deficit by nearly $3,000,000,000.

 

[metis]

I said my morality is based on the Biblical idea to love others. This means, by what is said in the Bible, I have learned what is good and right.

But of that, basic morality is to pay taxes to help support those in need. You have to decide which is more important, your money or to pay taxes that helps those in need? If charity alone could handle it, that would ve all fine & dandy, but history has shown us that it can't.

Mark 12[16] So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. 17Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him."

 

[Ponder This]

View attachment 73145​

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species. Those that survive pass down through culture and genetics those correct choices. Those choices wrong enough to cause early demise don't get passed down. Over time, the human brain gets wired via culture and genetics to feel certain choices are correct and other choices are wrong. So we get an inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong.

Now this is far from perfect since that only requirement is that it only requires it to be correct enough to allow survival until one is able to procreate.

In the past, these feeling of right and wrong get encoded into various religions. However not all religious morality comes from this evolutionary process. Individuals get inspired by whatever experiences they have and add to this religious moral code. Both ideas which are successful to survival and ideas which are not overly detrimental to survival get passed down to future generations.

There is a fairly wide range of what we as a species find as morally acceptable since as long as an idea is not overly detrimental to the survival of the species, it gets passed on.

I see my morals as partly evolved, partly inspired by my life experiences. Some even passed on to me by other people's concepts of God however there was no need for an actual God to declare absolute moral law.

Wait... Hold On... Let's think about this for a moment... Do I understand you correctly?
If a group of people decide to genocide another portion of the human population - an event that has taken place at various times in human history, then humanity's standard of morality is that those genocides are moral? Afterall, the genes of the genocided people do not get passed on, but the genes of those that did commit genocide do get passed on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wait... Hold On... Let's think about this for a moment... Do I understand you correctly?
If a group of people decide to genocide another portion of the human population - an event that has taken place at various times in human history, then humanity's standard of morality is that those genocides are moral? Afterall, the genes of the genocided people do not get passed on, but the genes of those that did commit genocide do get passed on.

I don't answer for @Nakosis but yes and no.
Yes, because killing other people generally involve morality and not just for why it is bad, but also why it is good.
No, because science can't tell if that is good or bad. That happens in a given human. Science can only tell you, that is in part how evolution works in humans.

 

[Nakosis]

Wait... Hold On... Let's think about this for a moment... Do I understand you correctly?
If a group of people decide to genocide another portion of the human population - an event that has taken place at various times in human history, then humanity's standard of morality is that those genocides are moral? Afterall, the genes of the genocided people do not get passed on, but the genes of those that did commit genocide do get passed on.

It affects what that group of people accept as moral. The temperament that allows such behavior is more likely to be passed down to future generations. Culturally, through stories of victory and success of the tribe, these moral memes get passed down.

Another group may decide to sacrifice or share resources. If this leads to success/survival of their group then a different temperament/set of memes gets passed down.

The point is not to judge the morals of either group but to understand how we as individuals end up with the morality that we have. Different culture, different genetic temperament, different life experiences cause us to develop different feelings about what is right and what is wrong.

This being contrasted to the idea that a supernatural deity exists which sets a universal standard for humanity.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that supports sex slavery.

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Why only the virgin girls? Not exactly a mystery.

 

[Nakosis]

" we" don't all mistake it as a positive vsaue

Yes, cultural differences.

 

[Audie]

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Why only the virgin girls? Not exactly a mystery.

Thanks. The question was so disingenuous I didn't even want to respond.