No God, No morals

[Sam21]

An interesting place in the Old Testament seems to indicate where the heart of God really was concerning slavery. If a slave escaped from his master and came to your town you were not to return him to his master and you were to help him.

 

[Ashua]

Or you could always read Neitzche. --An atheist who actually had coherent logical ideas.

 

[Jakeness]

really, what is to say that if one group of primates(humans) gradually change and kill others of lesser design, as they must to survive.

food, one primate has a particular nutrient that another needs.

If by "others" you are referring to other humans, then I can say we have evolved past that stage. To do so at this point in time would be immoral, for us. I admit this.

and abortion is an evolutionary advantage?along with euthansia?

if so why?

Did you read the entire article?

...They conjecture the fish do so to cut down on the amount of time spent caring for their young, thereby enabling the dads to reenter the mating game sooner...

...Eating his young might "allow him to increase the total number of offspring he produces over the breeding season."...

...Klug noted there are several reasons parents might eat their young, none of which are mutually exclusive. For instance, they could be weeding out inferior offspring, or they could very well be hungry...

 

[Deavonreye]

the constitution is nothing but paper if the society decides to change it.

think about it. all it would take these days, a large voting block,$$$$$$$$ and time.

politicians dont care.

we arent any better then the country of egypt.

i have worked disasters and given the right the circumstances, gas prices, food shortages, major disasters we would have some riots on that scale.

theres much on katrina you dont know

for example,power would get restored the gangsters would shot that part put in and the guard would have locate that perp and take em down or guard the lineman,often at peril

I agree. In a way, we have become worse social "animals" and it just takes a major disaster for the walls to start crumbling. And I actually do know a few Katrina facts that many don't.

People were better in the past. Before luxury and money became so widespread, people really did depend upon each other much more than we are today. It is a bit disconcerting.

 

[jasoncran]

I agree. In a way, we have become worse social "animals" and it just takes a major disaster for the walls to start crumbling. And I actually do know a few Katrina facts that many don't. People were better in the past. Before luxury and money became so widespread, people really did depend upon each other much more than we are today. It is a bit disconcerting.

hmm not really, think of what happened at kent state.

that wasnt very effective crowd control
or look at the early days of this country

the acts of sedition

 

[Deavonreye]

Why is the safety of the whole a moral law? I agree with you on this issue. I have an arbitration for my acceptance of this moral law. What is yours? The opinion of other people? What about the opinion of other "other people?"

ah, the constitution. the modern Bible of the Neo-American civilization. You are getting closer to an objective arbiter. Alas, at the end of the day, the constitution is only the scribed down "oral tradition" of other men, at the end of the day. I reject the opinion and ideology of men for absolute-moral arbitration.

Yes, the law has become the arbiter

I am all for global abolition. I'm sure you are. That is a common moral between us. That doesn't mean that slavery is immoral in the absolute sense. Western thought teaches us that it is, but western thought also fails to establish a universal, unbiased reason why. If the industrial revolution and the advances that led up to it had not taken place, I bet you America would still be a slave nation.

Intersting perspective. Again, I don't look at topics with absolutes in mind.

 

[jasoncran]

If by "others" you are referring to other humans, then I can say we have evolved past that stage. To do so at this point in time would be immoral, for us. I admit this.


Did you read the entire article?

...They conjecture the fish do so to cut down on the amount of time spent caring for their young, thereby enabling the dads to reenter the mating game sooner...

...Eating his young might "allow him to increase the total number of offspring he produces over the breeding season."...

...Klug noted there are several reasons parents might eat their young, none of which are mutually exclusive. For instance, they could be weeding out inferior offspring, or they could very well be hungry...

i did, but you are really supporting the deaths of kids that are mainly girls(oh the irony)

and also one could argue that about euthensia.

kill the invalid so that the strong survive, tis been done, hitler did that.

china and korea and uzbekistan are way out of kilter one women to 4 men

 

[Deavonreye]

hmm not really, think of what happened at kent state.

that wasnt very effective crowd control
or look at the early days of this country

the acts of sedition

I am unaware of kent state.

 

[jasoncran]

how so? after all they have a right to live, what makes homo the next step better then us?
or worse.they have a right to live and eat

in their minds we are food.

you dont think another species could evolve and find us tasty?

its speculative at this point but we cant say nay if you believe in evolution.

and if they are intellegent and wont reason then what makes their deaths less moral then ours since theirs no moral arbiter.

more of evoltution at its finest the winner takes the earth.

 

[jasoncran]

I am unaware of kent state.

what?

that is old news

the guard was sent to control a crowd and instead shot them.

it was an accident as one shot was fired but no one knows why the kids merely came towards the skirmish line they werent armed or threatening

dozens were killed

it happened in 1968.

 

[Ashua]

Yes, the law has become the arbiter



Intersting perspective. Again, I don't look at topics with absolutes in mind.

The law is not an universal arbiter. It is but the will of man etched in stone. Written opinion. Any man-made law is just man ruling over other men. If the balance of power were to reverse, that which is called "good" might be held in contempt, and that which we consider "evil" could be "legally" good. It depends on who sits in the seat of legislative authority. If hitler had won the war, think how morality would look today.

You don't think in terms of absolutes: fair enough. I don't understand how anyone can use the words "righteous, good bad, and evil" in the purest sense though, outside of an absolute construct.

 

[Jakeness]

An interesting place in the Old Testament seems to indicate where the heart of God really was concerning slavery. If a slave escaped from his master and came to your town you were not to return him to his master and you were to help him.

Do you mind if I ask for the verse?

 

[Ashua]

Do you mind if I ask for the verse?

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
He shall dwell with thee, [even] among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

-Deuteronomy 23:15-16

 

[Jakeness]

i did, but you are really supporting the deaths of kids that are mainly girls(oh the irony)

and also one could argue that about euthensia.

kill the invalid so that the strong survive, tis been done, hitler did that.

china and korea and uzbekistan are way out of kilter one women to 4 men

...is any of that actually relevant to my post?

 

[jasoncran]

...is any of that actually relevant to my post?

your claim that we get morals from nature.

viola that animals kill their kids and that is beneficial

by what authority to you claim that if a man has kids and kills them after birth?

if "nature" is the law giver.

can you state that isnt the same?

good luck with that, as somebody calls that murder if we are animals then why not after all the animals do it as well.

population control for china is a failure they are beginning to see that, uzbekistan did the same and now they pay women to have more then two kids

 

[Jakeness]

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
He shall dwell with thee, [even] among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

-Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Thank you. +1 to my good stuff in the Bible list.

 

[jasoncran]

that supports the underground railroad.

i have never seen that verse.

 

[Jakeness]

your claim that we get morals from nature.

I am inclined to say yes but judging from the rest of your post, you are using nature in a different way than I am.

Me= nature forced us to evolve to become how we are today, including morals
What you think I'm saying= We should look at other animals which evolved to be completely different than us, abandon our morals that we evolved to have, and copy theirs even though in many cases they don't fit us

viola that animals kill their kids and that is beneficial

To them. It would not be beneficial to us as you demonstrated so well with China.

by what authority to you claim that if a man has kids and kills them after birth?

I don't and never did.

good luck with that, as somebody calls that murder if we are animals then why not after all the animals do it as well.

See above.

population control for china is a failure they are beginning to see that, uzbekistan did the same and now they pay women to have more then two kids

Yep.

 

[jasoncran]

so how does something have elvolved that we cant prove.did men randomnly discover these things

i'm stupid.humor me

given that all we have of any early men then written history has no record, so its conjecture.

proove me wrong by a hard science(not soft science aka evolutionary psychology)

that is their field biology DOES NOT deal with learned behaviors that is where skinners law comes in.

and that is psychology not biology.

 

[Oats]

so how does something have elvolved that we cant prove.did men randomnly discover these things

i'm stupid.humor me

given that all we have of any early men then written history has no record, so its conjecture.

proove me wrong by a hard science(not soft science aka evolutionary psychology)

that is their field biology DOES NOT deal with learned behaviors that is where skinners law comes in.

and that is psychology not biology.

Great Post



sorry for the race thing