Leyla

Im not saying that morals aren´t real and just an illusion. Its a tool we developed and we can use it like any other tool to make life easier. Just because morals only exist in our heads, doesnt mean that its not real. Morality is subjective, so I cant tell you how everyone lives it out or should live it out. I personally, just accept that there is no good or evil in our universe, but try my best to have a good life because a good life is more enjoyable, and as a social animal its almost impossible to have a good life if youre alone. Thats why I need to figure out ways, to interact with other people. Thinking logically makes me realise, that if I hurt others or kill them or do bad things to them, then they will probably do the same things to me or isolate me from their community. That doesnt sound like fun. I dont really have to perpetuate a noble lie, its just how you live as a social animal. Consider others and try to live well and thats it. It also helps to listen to the giants of our civilization that developed the secular modern morals and to adapt things that suit you I probably worded it wrong, I mean the sociopath himself with "suffering individual", because sociopathy is a serious antisocial personality disorder and doesnt make life easy. How do I know it? If you give a social animal, a handicap to his social interactions then its obvious that this animal will have it harder than animals without that handicap. No its not about majority, because then morality would stop being an individual matter and it would turn into a collective matter. I never said that a certain morality is true just because it has a bunch of followers. Technically no morality is true or false, the best we can do is find one that makes life easier for everyone. The not pleasent part was just one of the reasons and not THE reason why we should not do rape. In this case it would be violation against the consent to sex. How dare you say that. Im close to that subject and I think about it alot. You dont know me or my friends so dont assume anything about me. Just because I can turn of my emotions and talk logically about something like rape doesnt mean that I cant relate to the people that went through it. Sometimes you have to think logically, because being emotional will never solve a problem and it will often make things worse. Yes racism or prejudice can have an evolutionary reason. It can be called moral or immoral based on the individual that judges it as moral or imoral. Just because something can be explained evolutionary doesnt mean that its moral or immoral. Im not saying that we have to judge everything based from a survival-evolutionary point of view, thinking like that simply leads to good results and accurate answers. I was generally only talking about why we have morals and where they come from and why its best for others to have it too. Just knowing where morals come from and why there are here, doesnt tell you anything about wether or not these morals are something worth pursuing.

There is no Is-Ought Fallacy because Im not saying that it HAS to be that way and we have examples of how it can be different in extinct human societies that practised for example human sacrifice. Im just saying that morals are a significant benefit for survival and thats why we have it. Yes you could say that humans are greedy and murderous animals, but that doesnt mean that we cant have morals too. One thing doesnt exclude the other. Its hard to use the word moral because its technically just an empty word that describes a mechanism but not WHICH mechanism and doesnt go into detail. You could argue that its moral for sociopaths to do bad things, but saying that its another direction in evolution is problematic. Sociopathy proved times and times again that its really bad for the suffering individual and that its also bad for the people around him. Its not a favourable trait, no its the worst kind of trait, its a handicap that reduces chance for surival. Such a trait will not be favoured by evolutionary means so it cant be called a new direction in our evolutionary path. The word moral is just a very complicated word. We developed them to help us survive in the world. Morals that were kind of beneficial stuck around and later we developed our modern secular understanding of morals, because we started to think more about these things. Its easy with the basics, for example I dont want to be killed so I wont kill others. But when we talk about more complex subjects like abortion or homosexuality it gets tricky. We cant just label it moral or immoral since the world is not exactly black and white, we also have to consider the grey spots. Is it moral to have lots of children, to abort or to be homosexual? If you ask me about my subjective moral, then I would say that its not moral. Is it immoral then? I dont think so aswell, in my opinion its something neutral. But my subjective morals are worthless because they are subjective. However everyones morals are subjective so the best way to solve this problem, is to find solutions that satisfies most of us. Noone gets harmed if someone has many children so why stop them? Noone gets harmed if consenting adults have a homosexual relationship so why stop them? Abortions are tricky and we can talk about it in more detail. Rape is not a pleasent thing for atleast one person and thats reason enough to not tolerate it. Could we have for example progress, technology or science if rape was legal? I doubt that. It would just create an enviroment, in which the strong thrives on the weak and that is not productive. If we are talking about rapes in females its very problematic due to pregnancies. Females are generally very hungry for ressources but they are not good at gathering them. Being physically weaker is tough, and having basically a natural physical handicap with menstruation, meant that you will lose valuable substances like iron in a time of scarcity ( time before technology). Its even worse in pregnancy because your need for ressources increases and you are less able to do anything. So we basically need a society or males to cover for females. Being unwantedly pregnant will decrease your chance of finding a mate that is willing to invest time and ressources into you, because from a survival point of view, males arent interested in females, they are interested in young and healthy eggcells, and eggcells cant be used for the 9 months shes pregnant. He would also need to invest ressources to raise the child of someone else and that can be a factor to not choose this female too. Rapists will probably not help raise and cover for the child they forcefully procreated so it could result in early child death. Aside from that, physical and mental injuries can result from rape and that doesnt help anyone. In Chimp communities everyone has sex with everyone and children are raised together so rape is less of a problem. Suicide and canibalism usually dont happen with most species unless there are some problems with that animal or the enviroment.

We dont want to be killed or hurt because that would either remove us from the gene pool or lower our chance of survival. We dont want the people in our society to be killed or hurt because that would damage the fabric of our society and reduce the chance for survival of our species. There is no objective evil, we are just social animals that evolved to live in groups, and living in groups requires certain rules or mechanism. Stopping destructive people from doing destructive things is simply in our interest and thats why we do it. We dont technically punish people because they are bad, for example if someone is born evil (pedophiles, people with mental illnes that want to kill because of it etc), we only punish people that actually do harm to our society(child rapists, murderes etc)

1) How can a planet be habitable after global flood on such a big scale? 2)How did all sea life survive? 3) After the flood was over, what were animals supposed to eat? Carnivores would kill off all the saved animals and plant eating animals would have nothing to eat. 4) Even if we assume that the animals survived and had enough oxygen, food etc... how did they find their way back home, to the different regions in all the other continents? 5) If we world was flooded on this big scale, why cant we find any evidence?? Do you think our scientists are really so incompetent, that they cant find even one evidence for it? [Edit: Thanks for all the answer and sorry for the late replies. I will try my best to respond as soon as possible]

3) Just saying evil is not enough we need an example of objective evil. What we think of as evil is subjective and comes from things that we can explain evolutionary and with other means. There is no reason to think that there is an objective evil in our universe.

The wind exists because the sun heats the surface of our earth in an uneven way. Wind with different temperature rises up, pushes other wind around and this is what makes our wind. There are other factors but these are the main ones. I dont see how anything of this is special and points to a God. Our earth is just being heated up by a huge hydrogen fusor. Sometimes we get huge catastrophes because of that and thats it. Instead of saying that hurricanes or tornadoes are caused by someone, its better so spend more money on science research, so we could learn to predict these things better. We can both make the wind visible and we can see the effect, we can see the cause, we can slightly predict it. There is nothing like that with the idea of a God

1. Almost noone explicitly says that God does not exist. You cant proof an unfalsifiable hypothesis wrong, so its a waste of time to bring it up. There is no reason to believe in a God and the default position for everything is to not believe it until its proven to be true. To make that statement shorter many people just say they dont believe in a God. 2. Some things have a creator, for others there is no reason to believe that they had one. There are tendencies and laws in our universe that form things like planets without the interference of a God. You could say that a God initiated and made these laws, but that would only point to a Deist God, and not the personal God of christianity. 3. A few hundreds years ago, we could not even split water into its two parts and we did not even have a way to make humans fly. We need to give science more time to answer things, that are as tough as the beginning or everything or the big bang completly. Noone rejects the idea of a creator fundamentally, there is just no reason to believe that there was one. 4. Ofcourse we cant make a rose yet. But I think you underestimate how complex modern flowers are. They went through billions of years of toughest evolutionary pressure to make them into what they are now, or until they were picked up by humans and slightly modified. We need more time to expand our understanding of the world and the universe

1. DNA doesnt just write itself, there is an evolutionary pressure that favours favourable genetic mutations and weeds out bad ones. Over time this will make highly adapted life forms that can give of the impression of an instructor. 2. Point 1 basically 3. Not finding cell organells elsewhere doesnt proof that they are not natural, it only proofs that cell organells exist only in life forms. To proof that cell organells are not natural, we need to proof that life itself is not natural first Just because something seems complex or seems to require a "hyper intellect". talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for example is a good source for observed speciation. Other observation are for example our almost identical DNA with great apes and similiar DNA to other mammals, the fossil record etc. Genetics is an absolutely strong and sophisticated field, and the proof in genetics cant be ignored. So far noone was able to provide proof that point to a God. How can there be a denial, to something that was not presented yet.

I still dont understand it, do you mean there was genetic manipulation during Noahs time and that god saved the ones that were pure? How did you derive that conclusion

I do genetic engineering as a hobby on a small scale, but I doubt that it existed in Noahs time

If it was a perfect design how could it fall?

So we suffered the consequences of a bad design? It makes me question how much responsibility humans or animals actually have and what is poisoned by genetics

How can animals be blamed if all they do is follow the instincts that they were born with? Were they created with flaws and then punished for the flaws?

"And God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt; for all living creatures on the earth had corrupted their ways." Some translation mention that all living creatures were corrupted and some that its only about people, what is right? If animals are included in all creatures, would it mean that God was dissapointed in all of his living creations?

Double post, excuse me for that

How can we differentiate between what is gods plan and what not? Is taking medicine to heal a fatal sickness interfering with gods plan aswell? Genetic modifcations have the potential to help many people

Is it okay to genetically modifiy animals, food and humans or do you think its against Gods plan or his creation?

I did not talk about the comparison with peodophiles because i thought it deserves a seperated thread. Living out pedophilia hurts innocent people, homosexuality between consenting adult does not. Wanting to murder people is a very destructive urge, I dont see how homosexuality can even come close to that. Comparing intimancy with people from your own gender, with physicaly or mentally hurting innocent people is simply out of proportions

Reading that confirms my understanding of it, that its just a cross some people have to carry. A predisposition they were born with, or something they aquired with their life, that they cant change or influence. It sounds very unfair to me, that the things you feel in your heart are worth less, or considered bad, just because the feelings are towards someone your own gender.

Why is the desire to be with the person you love or to be intimate with that person, a sin? Is homosexuality just dead weight that some people have to carry around their entire life?

Is thinking about/comitting suicide a sin? If it is do doctors commit a sin, when they assist in a suicide?

Its not proven yet, that information cant self assembly, so we cant assume that its impossible. And just because we have lots of genetical information does not mean that it disproves evolution. Science also does not believe that we evolved only by chance. Evolution went through natural selection and that is more than just chance, things that are better adapted to the enviroment, are universally more likely to survive. All our ancestors went extinct or evolved into what they are now, the modern monkeys are very different from our common ancestor with monkeys

The only way to disprove Evolution, or the Theory of evolution is to find dead animals in a time period in which they dont belong, for example modern rabbits in the dinosaur age. Such a thing never happened, so the only way to disprove it was not found yet.