Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

No you didn't.

You said "There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology". No mention of the others. And you didn't list what they were.

Then when that is pointed out you turn tail and run.

S'all good. You made the right choice, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The OP was actually about the intelligent and interesting atheists on here who approach things with good humor. And this thread has not been a sterling example of that, though some atheists have made interesting and in good faith arguments. Many have...not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The definition of morality != single moral issue. The discussion in this thread was on the source of morality. If you can't even agree what morality is, of course you're not going to agree on it's source. Theists would (generally) say morality is something defined outside of the universe. Atheists, if I read PP correctly, say it doesn't have to be that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The OP was actually about the intelligent and interesting atheists on here who approach things with good humor. And this thread has not been a sterling example of that, though some atheists have made interesting and in good faith arguments. Many have...not.

The discussion PP responded to was about morality.

No one cares about your opinions on which positions were posited "in good faith". This is an open forum. Deal with the points and stop your whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The definition of morality != single moral issue. The discussion in this thread was on the source of morality. If you can't even agree what morality is, of course you're not going to agree on it's source. Theists would (generally) say morality is something defined outside of the universe. Atheists, if I read PP correctly, say it doesn't have to be that at all.

You are affirming the point you think you are rebutting. The single thing point was in response to PP's question about agreement with each other on moral issues (hence the Hume argument). I agree with the rest of your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

No you didn't.

You said "There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology". No mention of the others. And you didn't list what they were.

Then when that is pointed out you turn tail and run.

S'all good. You made the right choice, IMHO.

I haven’t gone anywhere.

Still waiting for you to defend your claim about evolutionary biology.

Come on now, it can’t be that hard to fire up chat GPT again like you do for every other question when you get stumped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The OP was actually about the intelligent and interesting atheists on here who approach things with good humor. And this thread has not been a sterling example of that, though some atheists have made interesting and in good faith arguments. Many have...not.

Hello from OP -- In the first post, I said "It would have been very helpful to know that there are seemingly intelligent, good-humored and logical people who have rejected religion." I did not mention "approaching things with good humor" and did not mean that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Not PP. How do you avoid the Is-Ought problem for morality without an external frame of reference completely outside of the natural world? How do you say something is what it ought to be without referring to what is?

You misuse Hume's thesis, which is arguable at best even when used properly. But the critical thing is that even if the thesis were true, it doesn't say the conclusion is incorrect, just that a normative statement cannot be asserted based on it.

And it sure as sh*t doesn't provide any evidence for a supernatural origin of morality, no matter how badly you or Hume wish.

But that just means we're defining morality differently. Which is going to make it tough to come to any sort of agreement.

And who here is saying we need to come into agreement on any single moral issue?

We're saying drop your adherence to mythology and stop enforcing the morals from your ancient book on modern people.

You're allowed to post anything you want, of course, but it appears to me that some of these recent posts are intended to divert the discussion from that.

The OP was actually about the intelligent and interesting atheists on here who approach things with good humor. And this thread has not been a sterling example of that, though some atheists have made interesting and in good faith arguments. Many have...not.

Hello from OP -- In the first post, I said "It would have been very helpful to know that there are seemingly intelligent, good-humored and logical people who have rejected religion." I did not mention "approaching things with good humor" and did not mean that.

I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality stems from a combination of factors, including evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), cultural and societal norms, and personal conscience. It is shaped by our innate sense of empathy and fairness, as well as by philosophical reasoning and the social agreements we make to live harmoniously. Essentially, morality is both a product of our nature and environment, helping individuals and societies navigate what is considered right or wrong.

+1

lol.

And where exactly do cultural and societal norms come from?

There are tons of ethical concepts that are in direct opposition to evolution biology. What is your explanation for this?

Typical. Which part of "combination" do you not understand?

You asserted several factors and I am challenging them both.

What is your response? Or do you not have one?

DP - your argument is stupid. Something has multiple contributing factors and you want them to explain things as if there were only one factor? That's not PP's position.

WTF dude can you at least try?

Both are severely problematic and you offered zero mitigating support for how the issues are magically resolved by virtue of being multiple.

So many lack the intellectual capacity to support their assertions and claims at the most basic level.

You claim that morality stems from evolutionary biology and yet when the multitudes of problems with this claim is brought up, offer zero mitigation.

Please be serious.

I will shout this, because maybe the third time you will hear it.

PP DID NOT SAY EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WAS WHERE MORALITY STEMS FROM.

PP SAY IT WAS SHAPED FROM A COMBINATION OF FACTORS (let's count!) , including 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience.

GOT IT NOW?

SOMEHOW I BET YOU DON'T.

If you have any basis for morality that can't be explained by these things, let's discuss. I do, of course: religious basis. That is how you get people to burn people as witches, mutilate the genitalia of young women, deny women their bodily autonomy, deny LGBT people basic human rights, and fly planes into populated office buildings.

So unserious.

I rejected all three explanations as problematic.

And you can’t defend any of them, alone or together.

Bye now.

DP again, to religious pp -- I see you're waffling now. Good idea, as you are without defense otherwise.

You put up a decent fight for your religious beliefs, but you lost, simply because they cannot be defended - and you seem to know it, because you stopped, knowing you were losing.

I bet you encouraged a lot of people to reconsider their religious beliefs, though, and that is a good thing. Thanks.

Still waiting for an explanation of how the logical contradictions in the claim that morality derives from evolutionary biology can be explained.

I have asked four times now and you still have no response.

Did your chat GPT break?