Abiogenesis, evolution and morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if I clubbed you over the head to partake of your divine steak so as to feed my hungry belly would I be doing something wrong? Yes or no?

If you did it 100,000 years ago then probably not. If you did it this afternoon then yes. (Not only morally wrong but also a wrong course of action for you, bearing in mind I'm a black belt in karate). The conscience of the modern man has come a long way since the caveman, and done so without divine interference.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
a combination of the individual and society define what is right and wrong, there is no absolute right and wrong.

if you clubbed him over the head, you may justify your actions by your own moral code, but you would also be infringing on the moral code of the society you live in...resulting in you being put in prison in must societies and being given ...[text shortened]... ation in moral codes around the globe is proof enough that there is no absolute right and wrong.

Would everyone please stop clubbing me over the head.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If you did it 100,000 years ago then probably not. If you did it this afternoon then yes. (Not only morally wrong but also a wrong cause of action for you, bearing in mind I'm a black belt in karate). The conscience of the modern man has come a long way since the caveman, and done so without divine interference.

I sincerely doubt "the consience of modern man" has come a long way since the caveman.

More likely, for the most part we stopped killing others for food, just because there are better ways of getting food.

We still have for the most part no problem killing others for food. Only other animals though, not our own species.

Originally posted by stellspalfie

the massive variation in moral codes around the globe is proof enough that there is no absolute right and wrong.

I often get concerned right at this juncture in this matter.

Not all moral choices are cut and draw and simplistic:

Difficult moral issues we may all admit exist.
That there are moral problems that are really tough to solve, I think we all should admit.
But does this mean no absolute right or wrong exists?

Not all cultures display moral conduct in the same style:

One culture have men show respect with a bowing motion.
Another culture have men show respect with a hand shake.
The bottom line in both "codes" is to display respect.
This variation in ways to display respect doesn't mean no absolute right and wrong exists IMO.

I am hard pressed to imagine a culture where betraying those who have been faithful to you, is deemed a noble act.

Could we find a culture in which cowardice in military battle is exemplified as a virtue?

Other failures in moral conduct seem universal to all cultures.
Other virtuous acts of conduct seem exemplary to all cultures.

So I don't think the combination of individual expressions or societal expressions concerning good and bad conduct is enough to prove no absolute right and wrong exists. But don't think as a Christian I have not thought good and hard about that.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I sincerely doubt "the consience of modern man" has come a long way since the caveman.

More likely, for the most part we stopped killing others for food, just because there are better ways of getting food.

We still have for the most part no problem killing others for food. Only other animals though, not our own species.

Fetch me a time machine squire and the Ghost will disprove your argument.

*Failure to provide such time machine will be taken as a sign of capitulation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say!

Can you prove you are prescribing to a higher power? The answer is no, hence why it's called 'faith'.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fetch me a time machine squire and the Ghost will disprove your argument.

*Failure to provide such time machine will be taken as a sign of capitulation.

are you planning on transporting back to some kind of pre -organic soup?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Fake Gods? What are you on about sonship? Why are you asking me about fake Gods?

If you look at the post, you'll see that my question was an afterthought.
I said, it was mentioned - about fictional gods. What do you think about that point Knobs?

It was just conversational.
Don't feel picked on because I asked you and not whoever first mentioned fictitious gods. (Well, maybe a little picked on. You are an atheist).

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I sincerely doubt "the consience of modern man" has come a long way since the caveman.

More likely, for the most part we stopped killing others for food, just because there are better ways of getting food.

We still have for the most part no problem killing others for food. Only other animals though, not our own species.

I sincerely doubt "the consience of modern man" has come a long way since the caveman.

Well, I think suppressing human inhumanity against other humans, has historically been a game of wack-a-mole. Today, nations can press a button and in a short time millions of men, women and children slaughtered in an instant.

I think it has been a couple steps forward - a step or two backwards.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 7 outlines the chronic failure of humans. And except:

" For what I work out, I do not acknowledge; for what I will, this I do not practice; but what I hate, this I do.

But if what I do not will, this I do, I agree with the law that it is good.

Now then it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me. "

... for to will is present with me, but to work out the good is not. For I do not do the good which I will; but the evil whicyh I do not will, this I practice." (See Romans 7:15-19)

The NT says something is dragging man down.
Something more powerful than his good intentions and his acknowledgement of what is good, is dragging man down eventually.

He has a knowledge of good and evil. But he lacks the life power to DO the good that he knows or resist the evil that he knows. Man has some power. But he is always overpowered by some force dragging him away from the good.

This is true in every age of mankind.

More likely, for the most part we stopped killing others for food, just because there are better ways of getting food.

Unfortunately, I think the forecast for the future is not all that bright.

I agree with you that some steps forward have taken place in man's treatment of fellow man. But steps backward have taken place so that effect is a kind of ongoing tragic game of "wack-a-mole."

This is not being overly pessimistic. We can look back over the 20th Century and see plainly that in spite of progress in morality, unimaginable wickedness also sprung up.
The question is why should this be so ?

We still have for the most part no problem killing others for food. Only other animals though, not our own species.

Comment latter maybe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So are you actually positing that the growth and prominence of religion is beneficial to a well-functioning society?

The advent of various religious myths and customs could be regarded as a negative side-effect of a generally beneficial property in humans with respect to the well-functioning of human societies.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Tell that to evolution, she will tend to disagree. 😀

And what makes you think you can read Miss Evolutions mind? I say that you are wrong, and the fact that you decided to sidestep by making such an unfounded claim about what evolution would agree to, suggests you know you are wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
That my friend is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Saying someone else is confused doesn't generally win an argument now does it?

It is nevertheless true.

I won the argument by explaining why you were confused, to which you had no rational response: hence your 'its your opinion and your welcome to it' phrase which is basically saying you got nothing.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Would everyone please stop clubbing me over the head.

But your dinosaur steaks look so juicy, (not to mention being worth millions)

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your dinosaur steaks look so juicy, (not to mention being worth millions)

I'm just glad I didn't mention my fresh dodo eggs.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fetch me a time machine squire and the Ghost will disprove your argument.

*Failure to provide such time machine will be taken as a sign of capitulation.

Don't have a time machine unfortunately, but I'd advice you to take a trip to Scotland for a quick peek at the distant past.