@kellyjay saidYou could just tell me Y or N.
Pick one, as I said I was clear before if that wasn't good enough don't know what to tell you.
@kellyjay saidAgain, I did not equate cooperation with morality, but the means by which it was facilitated. (The seed from which it grew). Of course people could cooperate to rob a bank. That wasn't the point.
So what is used to determine what is a good moral? Someone who is willing to cooperate with another, to do some work like help change a tire, kidnap a child, feed the hungry, rob the elderly, help a child with their home work. Who is to say something is good or something is bad that we can clearly know what is a good moral or bad? Do you even believe in good morals and bad?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou brought it up how it started, and I said one had nothing to do with the other. A moral judgment looks at a point to see if it is good or not. A set of morals without good in only looks at what, something that pleases the one looking? That result could lead to anything pleasing or horrible for another. Without good we only do what is right in own eyes.
Again, I did not equate cooperation with morality, but the means by which it was facilitated. (The seed from which it grew). Of course people could cooperate to rob a bank. That wasn't the point.
@kellyjay saidNo. Cooperation leads to the formation of a group, a society, in which definitions of 'good' share a commonality and are passed on from one generation to the next. It is not every man or woman for themselves. It is the shared development of a moral code on which we base our moral judgments.
You brought it up how it started, and I said one had nothing to do with the other. A moral judgment looks at a point to see if it is good or not. A set of morals without good in only looks at what, something that pleases the one looking? That result could lead to anything pleasing or horrible for another. Without good we only do what is right in own eyes.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidGroups could be a band of robbers, or any social community that could endorse any type of crime against others. Being in a group doesn’t mean you have good intentions anymore than being alone does. To quote Ravi Zacharias some cultures treat their neighbors nice, others eat them because they like them, do you have a preference?
No. Cooperation leads to the formation of a group, a society, in which definitions of 'good' share a commonality and are passed on from one generation to the next. It is not every man or woman for themselves. It is the shared development of a moral code on which we base our moral judgments.
@kellyjay saidDo you have any examples of societies that evolved into systems that "endorsed any type of crime against" its own members and, as a consequence, prospered or survived for any significant amounts of time in human history?
Groups could be a band of robbers, or any social community that could endorse any type of crime against others.
@kellyjay saidDid Ravi Zacharias give you examples of cultures where people eat their neighbours "because they like them" which not only survived but also prevailed in the face of cultures that drew their strength from moral codes where people did not eat their neighbours "because they like them"?
To quote Ravi Zacharias some cultures treat their neighbors nice, others eat them because they like them, do you have a preference?
@wolfgang59 saidNo, but apparently taking the answer given to you is.
Too tricky for Kelly to answer!
@fmf saidPulled from the web:
Do you have any examples of societies that evolved into systems that "endorsed any type of crime against" its own members and, as a consequence, prospered or survived for any significant amounts of time in human history?
Stalin killed from 3 million to 60 million. and hitler killed 46.5 million people who died as a result of Hitler's foreign policy and brutal racial extermination policy.
The Cambodian Killing Fields (Khmer : វាលពិឃាត, Khmer pronunciation: [ʋiəl pikʰiət]) are a number of sites in Cambodia where collectively more than a million people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge regime (the Communist Party of Kampuchea), during its rule of the country from 1975 to 1979, immediately after the end of the Cambodian Civil War (1970–1975).
My addition:
Go through history, as soon as some government tries to control through force, it is endorsing crimes against its members, or those under their control.
Evolving into a single party, then a single leader, is a sure fire means for the death of millions to come about. These societies can go after other people groups too, you were not aware of these? I will add most of the modern countries to these lists too where they kill the unborn in abortion, those numbers dwarf these, for these modern societies it is a right to kill the unborn, I seen someone here even say it is a sovereign right to kill unborn. A sovereign right, as if they were God speaking to do this at God's will.
There is a movie out now on abortion they made it R rated, so someone under a specific age cannot see it without an adult, but someone very young can actually go get an abortion without parental consent. What is wrong with that picture?
The end times are going to be the most bloody in history, the 20 century has been bloodier than the 19 in total before it. It is going to get worse according to scripture, I believe that to be true.
@kellyjay saidWhat do these examples have to do with the OP or to do with whether it was necessary for deities to exist in order for morality to evolve in human societies?
Pulled from the web:
Stalin killed from 3 million to 60 million. and hitler killed 46.5 million people who died as a result of Hitler's foreign policy and brutal racial extermination policy.
The Cambodian Killing Fields (Khmer : វាលពិឃាត, Khmer pronunciation: [ʋiəl pikʰiət]) are a number of sites in Cambodia where collectively more than a million people were killed and ...[text shortened]... e 19 in total before it. It is going to get worse according to scripture, I believe that to be true.
3 edits
@fmf saidIf evolutionary processes are all there is, if there is no God, that would eliminate every cause for all human atrocities except humanity. Each murder, rape, abuse large and small are all products human evolution, you think a well done to humanity is in order? If so you have a low bar for well done.
What do these examples have to do with the OP or to do with whether it was necessary for deities to exist in order for morality to evolve in human societies?
@kellyjay saidI don't think "a well done to humanity" is what is being sought. Yes, there is "murder, rape, abuse large and small" and humans do these things. How does this affect the fact that moral codes and moral compasses evolved because humans are social creatures, and how does the fact there is "murder, rape, abuse large and small" prove, in your mind, that a deity exists or that a deity is necessary for there to be morality?
If evolutionary processes are all there is if there is no God, that would eliminate every cause for all human atrocities except humanity. Each murder, rape, abuse large and small are all products human evolution, you think a well done to humanity is in order? It so you have a low bar for well done.
@kellyjay saidHumans are responsible for - and the cause of - all human atrocities, regardless of "if there is no God" or "if there is a God".
If evolutionary processes are all there is if there is no God, that would eliminate every cause for all human atrocities except humanity.
Now "if there is a God", as you believe there is, what then? What would be "every cause for all human atrocities" be in that case?