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:

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

[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.

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?

Repeated rounds of gene–cultural coevolution would have gradually increased both the moral sense itself and the systems of moral norms. That is, the evolution of morality would have been directly promoted by natural selection in a process whereby the moral sense and the moral norms would have coevolved.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/#:

The key insight is a recognition that individuals who live in a social group in which everyone depends on everyone else for their survival and well-being operate with a specific kind of logic. In this logic of interdependence, as we may call it, if I depend on you, then it is in my interest to help ensure your well-being. More generally, if we all depend on one another, then we must all take care of one another.

How did this situation come about? The answer has to do with the particular circumstances that forced humans into ever more cooperative ways of life, especially when they are acquiring food and other basic resources.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/#:

Here, in textbook style, is a concise biological account of the evolution of morality. It addresses morality on three levels: moral outcomes (behavioral genetics), moral motivation or intent (psychology and neurology), and moral systems (sociality). The rationale for teaching this material is addressed in Allchin (2009).

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0167-7

Is that enough to 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: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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is 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: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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

[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.

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?

Repeated rounds of gene–cultural coevolution would have gradually increased both the moral sense itself and the systems of moral norms. That is, the evolution of morality would have been directly promoted by natural selection in a process whereby the moral sense and the moral norms would have coevolved.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/#:

The key insight is a recognition that individuals who live in a social group in which everyone depends on everyone else for their survival and well-being operate with a specific kind of logic. In this logic of interdependence, as we may call it, if I depend on you, then it is in my interest to help ensure your well-being. More generally, if we all depend on one another, then we must all take care of one another.

How did this situation come about? The answer has to do with the particular circumstances that forced humans into ever more cooperative ways of life, especially when they are acquiring food and other basic resources.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/#:

Here, in textbook style, is a concise biological account of the evolution of morality. It addresses morality on three levels: moral outcomes (behavioral genetics), moral motivation or intent (psychology and neurology), and moral systems (sociality). The rationale for teaching this material is addressed in Allchin (2009).

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0167-7

Is that enough to stop your whining?

No. My social groups operations for survival depends on infanticide of sickly babies and the murder of the elderly in order to conserve and maximize resources.

Is that ok with you?

If it is, the I concede the point.

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

Wow. You are quite thick. One, many a previous poster has noted that there are 3 components that work together to make a natural argument for morality. You continue to attempt to attack one while ignoring the other two. Secondly, the Romans failed. That's why that civilization no longer exists today. Societies and cultures evolve over time. And lastly, you are also ignoring the other component of the original poster's post as this piece also comes into play, "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."

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

Most people are largely ignorant of history, specifically history prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Our atheist PP friend probably had no idea that for most of human history infanticide not only occurred, but was very common for many reasons.

She probably has no idea about this history, much less the ability to rationalize why she personally believes it to be wrong.

Or much less why society changed and now accepts it as wrong. Which is a major aberration from most of human history.

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

Wow. You are quite thick. One, many a previous poster has noted that there are 3 components that work together to make a natural argument for morality. You continue to attempt to attack one while ignoring the other two. Secondly, the Romans failed. That's why that civilization no longer exists today. Societies and cultures evolve over time. And lastly, you are also ignoring the other component of the original poster's post as this piece also comes into play, "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."

“Innate empathy and fairness”

Is this universal?

If not, then it’s not innate.

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

Wow. You are quite thick. One, many a previous poster has noted that there are 3 components that work together to make a natural argument for morality. You continue to attempt to attack one while ignoring the other two. Secondly, the Romans failed. That's why that civilization no longer exists today. Societies and cultures evolve over time. And lastly, you are also ignoring the other component of the original poster's post as this piece also comes into play, "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."

The other two are addressed. My tribes goal is to maximize resources. Historically this approach was quite common. My conscience is fine with it, as it is the norm for our tribe.

So we are all good morally based on your definition of morality. So you must be OK with it, right?

[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.

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.

Whining and petulance are not a good look.

What things can not be explained by 1. evolutionary biology (which promotes social cooperation), 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience? Please name one. Then it can be responded to.

I did: religious morality. And why it is a bad foundation and leads to immoral positions. What do you have?

You posted nothing about causation. All three of the things you posted certainly lead to many outcomes which you would deem immoral.

Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother in order to preserve resources, but I bet you wouldn’t like it very much if we decided to bring back that evolutionary advantageous social norm. Why is that?

You just made a claim about evolution that you cannot support. Why would Evolutionary biology and social norms would imply that the tribe should murder your disabled child and and infirm grandmother, and how would the other two points you need to ignore: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience - not be the relevant ones in that scenario?

Fail.

Maybe you should run away as you threatened to.

So you don’t believe in survival of the fittest and resource maximization?

This is my tribes social norm (just like the Romans) and my conscious is fine with it.

Frankly you are the odd one for wasting resources on unproductive humans.

Most people are largely ignorant of history, specifically history prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Our atheist PP friend probably had no idea that for most of human history infanticide not only occurred, but was very common for many reasons.

She probably has no idea about this history, much less the ability to rationalize why she personally believes it to be wrong.

Or much less why society changed and now accepts it as wrong. Which is a major aberration from most of human history.

Wrong all all points except the last one. And you, as the PP you respond to, ignore the other two reasons put forward: 2. cultural and societal norms, and 3. personal conscience. You ignore those because you are dishonest and can't make your stupid point unless you ignore them.

Why society changed is a totally different question, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But if I had a guess it would be due to, I dunno, increased resources due to educational and technological advances so it was no longer necessary for the tribe to survive?

Of course you don't get that because you worship a book where the main character says "I don't like what I created, let me wipe them all out, men, women, and children, drowning sounds like the right amount of suffering, but then of course they'll all go to hell for eternity"!

Good thing none of that ever really happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

DP. I’m still curious what believers mean by “objective evidence”.

So…the PP was just BSing? There is no “objective evidence” after all?

[Anonymous]

The US seems about about 50 years behind other more secular developed countries. Other countries don't have these debates because the majority of the popularity does not practise any religion.

[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.

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?

Don't know who you're talking to, but I have never used chat GPT -- don't know how to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of us atheists come from religious backgrounds, and have lots of direct experience with religion.

And as others have mentioned, many of us are directly impacted by religious imposition upon us, in the United States and elsewhere.

How? You don’t have any examples of how religious people and their beliefs directly impact atheists. You just keep repeating they do.

DP. Uh, isn't it obvious. There aren't fights over abortion or prayer in school in China -- a non-religious country.