Evolution Brought About Morality ?

Originally posted by sonship
But one problem you have is an assumption of Uniformity. In God's revelation of the Bible we see that things HAVE NOT continued on in a perfectly uniform way since the beginning of creation.

It would appear that you agree that what we see does not match a divinely decreed morality. You have an excuse lined up that it has been corrupted in some way.
But that still doesn't explain why what we see matches so closely the predictions of evolution. Corrupted divine decree does not predict what we see.

" Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. " Richard Dawkins
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw626696.html

Why do they have "the appearance of having been designed" ?
In one word - LUCK.
No. Luck is not the opposite of 'the appearance of having been designed'. If you had actually read the book rather than taking out of contexts quotes, you would know that.

When all the fluff is brushed aside, why do living things APPEAR as having been DESIGNED ??? Luck is basically the explanation.
No, it isn't.

So then for the priest to act as a pedophile upon young defenseless boys is wrong.
But this wrongness is not really anything more than someone's personal feeling.
It is like the preference of decaf coffee to caffein or the other way around.
No, it isn't just someone's personal feeling. In this particular case, it is morality, which is objective and we and society tend to believe that morality is the 'right' way to behave, and that is subjective, but it is not just 'someone's personal feeling' but the feeling of almost everyone in society.

I don't believe this is so. I rather think that the OFFENSE is ultimately against the Source of righteous living - God. And God said that HE ... will repay.
So still subjective.

Am I unfair to assume that IF the Evolutionary process worked it all out again, maybe it would not coincidentally be the same. The religious priest might actually be furthering the survival of the species by being a pedophile preying upon youngsters.
Actually you would be unfair to assume that that isn't already the case. Most behaviours in humans are there because of evolution. If you see humans behaving in certain ways then there is a pretty good chance it can be explained in evolutionary terms.
It is not so easy to explain it in terms of some divine decree gone wrong.

But if you say Evolution must arrive at a society frowning upon pedophilia, this to me indicates there is something objectively true about its wrongness.
Although I do not believe that evolution must arrive at such a society, I must note here that there is a distinction between what society frowns upon and actual behaviour.

Without God, it is a kind of Platonic abstraction floating somewhere - ie. the badness of pehophilia.
And with God, it is still a subjective abstraction floating in the mind of God.

I know you hate to have labels on you. But basically that describes very much of your thinking.
Fine, use the label, but do not make the error of assigning to me attributes of 'Humanism' that you get from any source other than me. Labels are dangerous that way which is why I dislike them.
If you say 'Humanists believe this' and I do not believe it, then you will have to remove the label.
The real question is why you wish to apply the label. What purpose does it serve?

Originally posted by twhitehead

It would appear that you agree that what we see does not match a divinely decreed morality.

If somewhere in the mix you understood me to say that, you are mistaken.

Man evidences a uniqueness among all other living things that are on the planet. Man is simply one of a kind. Chimps, dolphins, bees and ants may be exceedingly interesting. But human beings are in a class all their own.

If you don't [g]Genesis 1:26,27[/b] that God said He made man according in His own image and according to His own likeness, that's ok. If you are realistic you should admit that there is NOTHING like human beings on the earth. We occupy a unique position even though we are part of the category of all living things.

Part of this uniqueness is man's moral sense.
Part of this is man's spiritual sense.

You have an excuse lined up that it has been corrupted in some way.

No. i do not have an excuse for WHY we do not measure up to what we nobly KNOW we should be. I have an explanation given to us in God's communication to us.

While I have an explanation for an imperfect man who seems to be damaged, I also have in history the testimony of a PERFECT man - Jesus Christ. So I have one man who appears to have escaped this fallen situation of being a slave to a sinning nature.

So I have the duel evidence of a damaged man and the example of an undamaged man of perfection. And I count the second case as essentially what God intended by human being originally.

These are very powerful evidences that I am on the right track.

But that still doesn't explain why what we see matches so closely the predictions of evolution. Corrupted divine decree does not predict what we see.

"Corrupt divine decree" is a phrase you just invented.

Now, while I think of it, you did mention "the predictions of theology". Well, what we see in society is also predicted as to what happens when men drift father and father away from God.

In Romans Paul traces the departure of man from fellowship with God. The result is confusion of idolatry and confusion of sexual orientation.

Now you can think back over 100 years until today and notice the explosion of LGTB community. And they have added some other letters, the meaning of which I am not certain - LGTBQQIA+ was the last acronym I saw. Someone can tell me what the QIA+ is suppose to mean.

So we do have something of "predictions" of what will happen to human society as it departs farther and farther from God.

Men gave up God and forced God to also give them up to a disapproved mind.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleaness, so that they dishonor their bodies among themselves.

Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.

Therefore God gave them up to passions of dishonor, for their females exhanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.

And likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their craving toward one another, males with males committing unseemliness and fully receiving in themselves the retribution of thier error which was due.

Even as they did not approve of holding God in their full knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting." (Romans 2:24-28)

So if you demand of me where is the evidence of the "predictions of theology", which challenge you started, not me, to compare with the predictions of Evolution, I would point to the explosion of homosexuality as evidence.

I am not finished with your post. But I have to stop writing right now leaving unsaid and unanswered some matters.

Originally posted by sonship
If somewhere in the mix you understood me to say that, you are mistaken.

Well then clarification would be helpful. I stated that what we see did not match divine decree and you appeared to be saying that the reason for this was because divine decree had been modified over time.

Part of this uniqueness is man's moral sense.
Part of this is man's spiritual sense.
Yet man behaves almost identically to animals in most respects. But this a side discussion and doesn't matter for the current issue which can be restricted to humans.

"Corrupt divine decree" is a phrase you just invented.
Yes, that's how language works. You put some words together and it means something. I think you will find almost every sentence or phrase I write was one I just invented.
But the meaning matches what you appeared to be saying and still appear to be saying.

Now you can think back over 100 years until today and notice the explosion of LGTB community. And they have added some other letters, the meaning of which I am not certain - LGTBQQIA+ was the last acronym I saw. Someone can tell me what the QIA+ is suppose to mean.
So we do have something of "predictions" of what will happen to human society as it departs farther and farther from God.
You are making two claims here that need substantiating:
1. That there are more non-heterosexual people than in the past.
2. That society has departed further from God.

But far more importantly, you need to explain why humans would be more homosexual after departing from God. What is the logical reason? I don't want some declaration from Paul, I want an actual reason.

So if you demand of me where is the evidence of the "predictions of theology", which challenge you started, not me, to compare with the predictions of Evolution, I would point to the explosion of homosexuality as evidence.
I do not see any 'explosion of homosexuality'. In addition, I am fairly sure Paul was writing about his own times (when homosexuality was also quite openly practiced).

But what I am really looking for in 'predictions of theology' is an actual prediction that given a moral standard from God we should expect homosexuality, or expect some people to murder or expect adultery to be common place. I want an actual reason for these and not hand waving saying 'well it doesn't match what I think God wants therefore its because people are getting further from God'. That seems more like an admission that the theological predictions are failing than an actual successful prediction.

Originally posted by twhitehead

No. Luck is not the opposite of 'the appearance of having been designed'.

I didn't say that about luck.
I said luck is what people like you assume explains the appearance of design.

If you had actually read the book rather than taking out of contexts quotes, you would know that.

Since I didn't say what you said I said, reading or not reading the book is irrelevant.

When all the fluff is brushed aside, why do living things APPEAR as having been DESIGNED ??? Luck is basically the explanation.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.
If you take away Intelligent Design the appearance of design is left to luck, basically.

So then for the priest to act as a pedophile upon young defenseless boys is wrong.
But this wrongness is not really anything more than someone's personal feeling.
It is like the preference of decaf coffee to caffein or the other way around.

No, it isn't just someone's personal feeling. In this particular case, it is morality, which is objective and we and society tend to believe that morality is the 'right' way to behave, and that is subjective, but it is not just 'someone's personal feeling' but the feeling of almost everyone in society.

The majority of Germans in WWII felt they should follow Hitler.
Go tell your Jewish friends that that was a morally "right" way to behave.
See how they react.

The collective feeling was evil and I would add objectively wrong also.
Did you tell your Jewish friends that the Holocaust was not "objectively wrong" ?
What kind of reception to that idea did you get from your Jewish friends ?

I don't believe this is so. I rather think that the OFFENSE is ultimately against the Source of righteous living - God. And God said that HE ... will repay.
So still subjective.

Am I unfair to assume that IF the Evolutionary process worked it all out again, maybe it would not coincidentally be the same. The religious priest might actually be furthering the survival of the species by being a pedophile preying upon youngsters.
[/b]

Actually you would be unfair to assume that that isn't already the case.

Before I consider this I would mention that it is unfair of you to even suggest that there is forensic evidence that Evolution is responsible for new life forms to begin with.

You have evidence that some animals that use to live no longer live.
You have evidence that dogs can be bred into many different kinds of dogs.
You have evidence that experiments can cause fruit flies to have extra wings.
You have evidence that a bird has some bone structures similar to dinosaurs.

You have no evidence that one species produced offspring that gradually eventually became a whole new species. You have a belief about it, a theory, a hunch.

Most behaviours in humans are there because of evolution.

Again. A hunch. You have no definite forensic evidence of this.

If you see humans behaving in certain ways then there is a pretty good chance it can be explained in evolutionary terms.

Just a hunch.
Just an assertion.

Now I assert also. I use the Bible to mention its assertions. But I know it. You assert yet pretend that such assertions are scientifically proved.

You never witnessed one life form evolving into another life form with a major difference in body plan. Something like a maggot to a fly, or tadpole to a frog, or Caterpillar to a butterfly, might be offered as exceptions.

I don't count these as examples of Evolution. We were both programmers of computers. These examples seem to me to have had to of been nested looping logic if there was an Evolution process.

I mean within the algorithm of evolution there would have had to been a number of nested logic loops which evolved within the larger evolving, a loop within a loop. I can not figure how such a situation like this could have happened.

It is not so easy to explain it in terms of some divine decree gone wrong.

A divine decree disobeyed is not a divine decree gone wrong.
I said a foreign element of some kind entered into man constituting him a sinner.
Something happened to man's constitution.

Man was not created originally with that foreign "poison". It entered into him. Paul contrasts two men - Adam and Christ. Both these heads of humanity constitute men in their beings to be something.

" For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were CONSTITUTED sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be CONSTITUTED righteous." (Romans 5:19)

These two men Adam and Christ are two heads or leaders of humans.

Christ is also called "the last Adam" as a conclusion to one line of types of humanity. Christ is also called "the second man".

Now a neutral. very good first man Adam, we have not known in history. We are only TOLD that man was originally made upright, good, and innocent. We know of no one like that. But we know all people are indeed sinners.

Many of us also know that there was ONE man - Jesus Christ, Who was sinless, perfect. Being such His impact on human history was cataclysmic in significance.

While it is easy for you to overlook Jesus Christ and regard the New Testament as no more important than something like Grimm's Fairy Tales, too many of us believers cannot do so. We have to take the NT seriously.

The judgement of naivete, we would regard as being the problem of those not taking the New Testament seriously.

But if you say Evolution must arrive at a society frowning upon pedophilia, this to me indicates there is something objectively true about its wrongness.

Although I do not believe that evolution must arrive at such a society, I must note here that there is a distinction between what society frowns upon and actual behaviour.

That is right. There is a difference between description and prescription.
How we behave and how we believe we OUGHT to behave is not always the same.

I say we measure crooked because we have some idea of what straight ought to look like. We measure moral failure because we intuitively know what moral success should look like.

No, we do not measure up in behavior to what we know we should be.

We are usually more sensative to what people OUGHT to do when we are on the RECEIVING end of behavior. We are usually partial. We are not as sensitive when the victim of bad behavior is the other person at the end of OUR actions.

Our REACTIONS more often indicate our awareness of a moral standard of good than our actions.

Without God, it is a kind of Platonic abstraction floating somewhere - ie. the badness of pehophilia.

And with God, it is still a subjective abstraction floating in the mind of God.

Perhaps I might grant you the word "floating" somewhat. However the mind of God would be eternal. So this divine characteristic would be as eternal as God Himself.

The word "subjective" I would say I would change to MOST objective. That is an objectivity which could not be more objective because it comes from the ground of all being, the source of the existence of everything besides God's own eternal self.

I think I would say that a GREATER objectivity would be not possible.
I recognize that the cosmic buck has to stop somewhere.
You avoid that with fierce agnosticism.

I know you hate to have labels on you. But basically that describes very much of your thinking.

Fine, use the label, but do not make the error of assigning to me attributes of 'Humanism' that you get from any source other than me. Labels are dangerous that way which is why I dislike them.

In my brief little reference to Wike, i can't imagine how you could object.

But I will do you the courtesy if you do not attribute to me some theory of "corrupt divine decree" or however you put it. That was way off.

God was not damaged.
Man was damaged.

If you say 'Humanists believe this' and I do not believe it, then you will have to remove the label.

Sure. In THATp aspect, Humanism may not be an accurate label. No problem.

" Corrupted Divine Decree " has nothing to do with what I explained.

The FALL effected man's nature. It did not negatively effect God's nature.

The real question is why you wish to apply the label. What purpose does it serve?

It serves to describe some of your beliefs.
IE. Man being the measure of all things.

And I would still ask - "Which man ?"

Originally posted by twhitehead

You are making two claims here that need substantiating:
1. That there are more non-heterosexual people than in the past.
2. That society has departed further from God.

What I did was refer to the Apostle Paul's outline of the degradation of human society from the early days of man's creation. I then drew similarities with today.

The quotation that I used said that man replaced God with idolatry. If we suppress the knowledge of God we will inevitably replace God with some kind of idol.

In the case of man's legitimate need for sexual fulfillment he became so obsessed with lust that he made an idolatry out of sexual fulfillment. The greediness of desire enthrones sexual union beyond logical boundaries to include homosexuality and beastiality.

These were not the only degradations mentioned in the history of the decline of society. I chose to highlight this particular degradation.

When God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15 He told him that it would take another 400 years before the Amorites would be SO BAD morally that they would merit conquest and destruction of thier worship centers. We can read about all the abominations God warned the Hebrews not to participate in as the Canaanite societies were involved in.

I say, the 400 years of decline eventual produced the rock bottom sinful morality of the nations in the land of Canaan.

We can can contrast this with the people of the land during the time of Abraham. Actually, Genesis seems to make a point that the nations of that land still had some conscience in them. On more than one occasion we are surprised to see that Abraham even over estimated the badness of some of those nations.

Abimelech scolds Abraham because the patriarch almost caused him to commit the serious sin of adultery with Abraham's beautiful wife Sarah.

"Then Amimelech called Abraham and said to him, What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done.

And Abemilech said to Abraham, What did you see, that you have done this thing?

And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will slay me because of my wife." (Gen. 20:9-11)

What we have in Genesis is a record of the gradual decline of the people of Canaan. Eventually after another four centuries there was fear of God or decent human conscience left. Incest, bestiality, homosexuality run rampant and even form integral parts of their religion. They made idols of their lust.

Now let us look at the modern day United States. Since that is my country, i will speak of what I know best. No one can hardy deny that the sexual revolution since the 1960s has exploded of late into redefining marriage to mean homosexual unions.

I do not say this is anything new in the world.
The US did not invent this kind of downward spiraling into chronic promiscuity.
The growing trend of sexual promiscuity has been unmistakable.
My opinion is that the waning influence theism over the public square has been a factor.

When people depart from belief in God the insatiable hunger and dissatisfaction with the emptiness that follows drives them into many corrupted things.

What happened to all the "Free Love" of the 1960s? It must have left millions of people feeling disappointed, wounded, let down, unfulfilled, hurting, and unspeakably lonely. A eventual reaction ?

Men and women explore WHAT ELSE could possibly make them happy. To have homosexual partners, to change their sex, to marry animals they love (in the sidelines).

Paul identifies fornication and adultery with idolatry.
But before USA is examined we might look also at the fall or the Roman Empire.

But far more importantly, you need to explain why humans would be more homosexual after departing from God. What is the logical reason? I don't want some declaration from Paul, I want an actual reason.

Why would not Paul's declaration not shed light on the "actual reason" unless you wish to discard the Apostle's word up front ?

The mind gets twisted. The logic gets darkened. The conscience gets unfeeling and hardened as like skin burned with a hot iron. Logic becomes twisted when God is discarded. Reasoning can become warped when God is suppressed.

One feels he cannot control the sin nature running through his body. Rather than regard it as an undesirable man may even enshrine his lower appetites. He may feel that if he cannot control them he will boast of them instead, embrace them, and indulge in them to the uttermost.

The perversion of wants what it wants what it wants !
It demands then acceptance and respectability of the surrounding society.
It seeks to use the strong arm of the law courts then to force everyone else to respect their perversion as acceptable, even respectable.

These things are occuring in the US. I think they are occurring elsewhere too.

I do not see any 'explosion of homosexuality'. In addition, I am fairly sure Paul was writing about his own times (when homosexuality was also quite openly practiced).

You are correct that in places like Corinth in the Roman empire there was fornication of all kinds.

He was not an activist trying to alter Roman society as a whole. But towards these communities called churches he labored to bring them BACK to God and righteous human living. He did so by teaching men to live in the sphere of Christ and allow Christ to live in and through them.

And in Romans I think we can regard his outline of the history of the world from the fall of man to contain an element of prediction.

But what I am really looking for in 'predictions of theology' is an actual prediction that given a moral standard from God we should expect homosexuality, or expect some people to murder or expect adultery to be common place. I want an actual reason for these and not hand waving saying 'well it doesn't match what I think God wants therefore its because people are getting further from God'.

Sometimes it may be necessary to wave your hands when some folks are really determined to ignore things.

That seems more like an admission that the theological predictions are failing than an actual successful prediction.

No, not at all. when I read this word about the end times I think the Bible is clocking and timing things with great dependability.

Originally posted by sonship
I didn't say that about luck.
I said luck is what people like you assume explains the appearance of design.

No, that is not what you said, and it is wrong anyway. People like me do not assume that at all.

Chance is involved in evolution, but it is not the be all and end all of evolution. Evolution is a process not pure luck

Since I didn't say what you said I said, reading or not reading the book is irrelevant.
It is highly relevant if you wish to use a quote and claim it means what you wish it to mean. You quoted it out of context and then claimed a meaning it did not have, and also, and as you say above claimed that 'people like me' assume a particular thing. It definitely is relevant that you did not read the book and quoted it out of context.

Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.

If you take away Intelligent Design the appearance of design is left to luck, basically.
No, it isn't.
Repeating false claims over and over won't make them true.

The majority of Germans in WWII felt they should follow Hitler.
Just as a large number of americans today feel they should follow Trump. That doesn't mean they don't know they are being morally wrong.

Go tell your Jewish friends that that was a morally "right" way to behave.
See how they react.
Why should I do that? It isn't something I have claimed. You have not been paying attention as usual, or you have and you are flat out lying.

And how would their reaction change whether or not I am correct? That you need to appeal to the emotions of Jews to try and support your claim suggests you fully admit that it is subjective.

The collective feeling was evil and I would add objectively wrong also.
Then provide an argument for why you think it was objectively wrong.

Did you tell your Jewish friends that the Holocaust was not "objectively wrong" ?
What kind of reception to that idea did you get from your Jewish friends ?
When you are ready to discuss this rationally, let me know.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Chance is involved in evolution, but it is not the be all and end all of evolution. Evolution is a process not pure luck

Quote me where i said Evolution was "pure luck".

You quoted it out of context and then claimed a meaning it did not have, and also, and as you say above claimed that 'people like me' assume a particular thing. It definitely is relevant that you did not read the book and quoted it out of context.

I don't need to quote the entire context of that sentence.
Neither do I have to read the entire book, In fact I am not even sure which book the quote is in. It doesn't matter that much.

And contrary to your complaint, all I need to do is understand what the writer himself meant by saying.

1.) I know that his little definition there is not meant to be technically rigorous. I know it is kind of folksy, like a passing remark.

2.) It STILL communicates something. And unfortunately for you perhaps, i do, get what he is trying to communicate. There is little need for you to try to rescue him from his own remark, saving him from embarressment.

3.)

" "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. "

No, I do not have to read the entire book to get the essence of his remark. It might be interesting to do so. But it is not necessary as far as that remark goes.

4.) Now let's see what I could possibly be misunderstanding Dawkins to mean.

a.) Does he mean Bilogy is a study ? Yes.

b.) Does he mean Biology is the study of living things ? Yes, that seems to be what he means.

c.) Does he mean Biology is the study of living things, which take on a certain appearance ? Yes. There is little chance I could be misunderstanding him there.

Biology, is the study of cpmplex living things which have an APPEARANCE.

d.) What is the APPEARANCE that these living things take on, to Dr, Dawkins ?

Well, he is saying that these living things take on an APPEARANCE of having been designed.

Does he mean living things have an appearance of having been designed? Yes.

e.) And what particularly would Dr. Dawkins like to draw my attention to about this "appearance of having been designed" ? He says, with little chance of misunderstanding, they have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Does he mean that living things have an appearance of having been designed for a purpose yet this is largly or wholly just an appearance? Yes. that seems to be what is being said.

I did not say Evolution was purely luck. And I don't know how reading his whole book will make any of the above points mean the opposite of what they say.

You can cry "context" and point to any fine minutia you like. i won't be impressed until you produce something which show - one of a number of things in Dawkins' writings -


1.) Biology is NOT a study.
2.) It is NOT a study of complex living things.
3.) Complex living things actually were designed.
4.) complex living things actually were designed with a purpose.

So, if you have something down in the "context" of any of Dawkins' books which espouse any of the above 4 points then, Dawkins must have said what he didn't mean by saying -

Roughly - Biology is the study of living things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Show me something then in his books which could be used to refute his own off the cuff definition. It is not my problem of out of context reading.

It is understood that the purpose of Richard Dawkins is to be a crusader for the new Atheism. He took on the mantle and enjoys (sometimes) that role. Don't blame Christians for putting the mantle on him.

And it is generally understood that Paley's Watchmaker argument is what Dawkins is taking aim at to generally refute with his atheistic presentation of Evolution being like a BLIND Watchmaker.

Dawkins intends to refute Paley's old theological argument for the existence of God.
Your job then is to show how terribly unfair I am being to Dawkins for understanding words out of his own mouth.

Are they an embarrassment to you ? And I did never use the phrase "pure luck". You tried to insert the phrase into my mouth.

Originally posted by sonship
Quote me where i said Evolution was "pure luck".

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. This conversation is over.

I suspect sonship is deliberately laying the ground for a new Monologues Only contribution policy.

Originally posted by twhitehead

When you are ready to discuss this rationally, let me know.

As if I should trust as very rational the mind that argues that "facts" can be about things which are not true.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Chance is involved in evolution, but it is not the be all and end all of evolution. Evolution is a process not pure luck

I said something about design appears to be "basically luck" to the Evolutionist like twhitehead. You made it "pure luck".

Your hypocrisy in wanting words said parsed exactly knows no bounds.

Originally posted by twhitehead

If you take away Intelligent Design the appearance of design is left to luck, basically.

No, it isn't.
Repeating false claims over and over won't make them true.

Anyone who describes someone as seeing the evidence for intelligent design in something like the DNA molecule, is "desperate" ... I don't know what other rationale he would have to explain it. .

That's as dumb as saying one is really obsessed and desperate to realize that 2+2 = 4 rather than 11 or 3 or something other than 4.

Tell us all about how very "desperate" we are to detect intelligence in the design of living organisms. Its terribly amusing!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. This conversation is over.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

That's rich coming from the dude that claims he doesn't lie. Or was that simply one of your 'untrue' facts?

The majority of Germans in WWII felt they should follow Hitler.
Just as a large number of americans today feel they should follow Trump. That doesn't mean they don't know they are being morally wrong.

twhitehed maintains something could be "evil" but that does not mean it is objectively wrong.

The above sentence does little to salvage this denial of objectively wrong evil.

Maybe it is an attempt to sidestep the issue in favor of arguing about Donald Trump and American politics.

So people know something is evil and objectively wrong but do it anyway.
That doesn't make the objectively wrong moral behavior be lost in moral relativism.

It just confirms that we do not always do the good that we know.
And we do not always resist the evil that we also know.

According to the Bible we're sinners. We have something called a sin nature. We also have something called the knowledge of good and evil.

And sometimes it is quite accurate. This many realize in the midst of our moral failures.

Go tell your Jewish friends that that was a morally "right" way to behave.
See how they react.
Why should I do that? It isn't something I have claimed. You have not been paying attention as usual, or you have and you are flat out lying.

With twhitehead, everything has always been explained on "the OTHER page".

So let's go back to the other page to see what he said.

'Evil' is a concept, a human made concept. Something can be evil - even objectively evil in the sense that it matches the human made concept 'evil', but still not be objectively wrong. The word 'wrong' is subjective by definition. There really is no way to get around that.

Synonyms for the word "WRONG" include:

BAD

Synonyms for the word BAD include:

" atrocious, awful, abominable, amiss, not good, godawful, dissatisfactory, raunchy, ..."

Synonyms for the word EVIL include -

" BAD, corrupt, wicked, WRONG, atrocious, NOT GOOD, iniquitous, damnable, depraved,..."

I think there is plenty of ground to understand that objectively WRONG can mean objectively EVIL.

And how would their reaction change whether or not I am correct? That you need to appeal to the emotions of Jews to try and support your claim suggests you fully admit that it is subjective.

Word usage above is not so subject to emotions. And as one can see wrong and evil can be interchangeable.

The human conscience can be over sensative. And a man may regard something that is done to be evil when it is not really wrong.

But doing evil certainly can be understood as doing something objectively WRONG, objectively BAD, objectively iniquitous, objectively not good.

So if you don't want to test this on your Jewish friends then test it here:

For me, an evangelical type Christian, to impose my beliefs on you, is NOT objectively wrong. That is according to how I understand you.

If I were a religious political activist then, to seek to legislate into law my Christian beliefs to impose them in, say, public school, would NOT be objectively WRONG according to your view.

How's that work ?

When you are ready to discuss this rationally, let me know.

According to your own philosophy I am not doing anything to you which is objectively wrong. So according to your own argument you cannot be objectively right to protest my treatment of you in this discussion.

Let me know when you are ready to stop stealing from a Theistic worldview in order to push Atheistic arguments on morality.

Originally posted by sonship

When you are ready to discuss this rationally, let me know.

As if I should trust as very rational the mind that argues that "facts" can be about things which are not true.

You are either lying about me again, or your memory is poor.