No Gods and therfore no moral code

I see that you are merely babbling and wiggling your way around..

This is incorrect. Check ancient Egypt.

If two animals fight and the loser walks away, it is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority. This is not hardwired morality. You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group. The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival.

Where did I say such a thing?

Spurious + irrelevant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see that you are merely babbling and wiggling your way around..

i see you do not have a leg to stand on hence the baseless and disingenuous
accusations. there are questions that you ignore

This is incorrect. Check ancient Egypt.

you deny the larger point? or do you prefer to nitpick?

If two animals fight and the loser walks away, it is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority.

i guess i better spell out the dynamics as you seem incapable of reasoning with some imagination nor doing your own research.

the animals in question are wolves. there is a clear victor. the vanquished retains life by the previously described gesture of surrender. pay attention now. the loser is allowed to live. now speculate on why this happens. (5th grade indeed)

This is not hardwired morality.

positive assertions are generally more useful

You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group.

perhaps it is because i never made the assertion? group vs parent/child dynamics while having some common aspects are not the same. familial ties are much stronger and if choices have to be made the interests of the group will be dumped in order to favor the family.

it is your lack of imagination that prevents you from seeing the obvious benefits of being a member of a larger group. it pays to be nice to your neighbour. this is not something eve's kin had to learn. instinct had them banding together to ward off predators and the like. success reinforces that behaviour. subsequently language develops. moral codes are then modeled on these social instincts. since societies evolve into complex ones, these instincts are inadequate to encompass all potential behaviours. we now make laws. there is a correspondence of the social instincts to that which most societies hold to be objective moral dictates. these are non negotiable

The human aims simply to survive.

simplicity doesnt require much thought. i understand why you take this tack

Morality evolves as function to promote that survival.

my goal is to explain the mechanism of that evolution. you appear to engage in mindless soundbites. rather unproductive i think.

Where did I say such a thing?

also think that it is this need for organization, accountability, etc within societies that prompted the meshing of morality into religion-- to give it more authority. I think morality precedes religion.(head)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have ignored no questions. You on the other hand, have ignored and then changed your argument-- which you never had to begin with. Your aim is simply to irritate

Where is the nitpicking? This assertion it is due to the advent of monotheism that found morality invested in divinity.
is in itself broad and very incorrect. The Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, etc etc all did not have monotheism and yet had societies that had morality "invested" in divinity.

My idiotic fellow sciforumer, that is not morality. Also, that the "vanquished" is allowed to live only has the tiniest of relevance if they are allowed back into the group/pack. If you know lion behaviour for instance, you will know that the vanquished male for instance is expelled from the group. The animal societies or groups that allow the vanquished to stay with the group do so because of an evolutionary tactic to survive based on strength in numbers. Again, this is not morality.

A negative assertion, if it shows a postive assertion to be wrong is likewise useful. Now stop your stupidity.

Spock: i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive

Now this is an obvious that further debunks your moronic assertions. The familial ties are much stronger in the cases where there is bonding. Between the parent(mother) and the child, this bonding is even bioligical. When it is extrapolated to the group, it becomes artificial-- this is where morality comes into being-- the ties are specified.

Nitwit, of course eve's kin had to learn that it was "nice" to become members of a group that is not the family unit. It had to be able to trust that the other group(s) will uphold the survival of the group. Instinct had them in the fundamental group that is the family; a need for survival and a realization that the group-- if sharing common goals, increases the chances for survival--this was learnt.

Are you a nitwit? Modelling morality on the survivability of the group is not the same as morality is instinctive.

Another stupid ploy.

You are repeating assertions I have already made; get a grip.

The above is not equivalent to: the relevance is to show that contrary to your assertion that a functional society requires a religious basis for its moral practices.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have ignored no questions.

i will list them

You on the other hand, have ignored and then changed your argument-- which you never had to begin with.

i have ignored my argument? i have changed it? something i never had in the first place? how does one change a noexistent argument? document these insane allegations

Your aim is simply to irritate

seek help. your stunted emotional development is not my concern.
i tire of repeating myself. if anything, it is this constant whining that should be an irritant. you visibly deflate

My idiotic fellow sciforumer

not a fellow, an enemy. get that into your thick skull! now cease with the bogus distractions

The animal societies or groups that allow the vanquished to stay with the group do so because of an evolutionary tactic to survive based on strength in numbers. Again, this is not morality.

once again your twisted manner of comprehending sentences is a sight to behold. where did i assert that a social instinct is the same as morality?
see here..."moral codes are then modeled on these social instincts. "
explain yourself and your conclusion

A negative assertion, if it shows a postive assertion to be wrong is likewise useful. Now stop your stupidity.

lets revisit. how does this...."This is not hardwired morality.", prove anything wrong? simply because you say so? you offer up an opinion as a statement of fact without an ounce of data to back it up? thats crackpot reasoning at its best.

you have offered nothing to the discussion so far. pathetic!

You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group.

heh. you see relations where there are none.

altruism defines the parent/child relationship
cooperation defines the intra group relationship

i extrapolated nothing! i suspect disingenuous argumentation. however i will eleborate on the dynamics as there are additional complexities that have ti be taken into account

Now this is an obvious that further debunks your moronic assertions.

which one? which ones? be specific

The familial ties are much stronger in the cases where there is bonding. Between the parent(mother) and the child, this bonding is even bioligical.

the social instinct as asserted by me (You are repeating assertions I have already made; get a grip. ) get a grip indeed!

When it is extrapolated to the group, it becomes artificial-- this is where morality comes into being-- the ties are specified.

this is a useless distinction. if you assert something you have to give the reasoning behind it. what exactly is unnatural about a social grouping? how the hell would a bunch of apes specify ties? how do they form moral concepts and communicate these in order to form a cohesive and functional group? it is only after a particular stage of evolutionary development we progress from social instincts that govern relationships to the more complex forms that we term as morals

i hold that social instincts are varied and flexible enough to encompass entire species. (members do not usually prey on each other). deliberate moral formulations are unnecessary and usually impossible in the lesser forms of animal. await expansion on this point!

i do not think you even comprehend what this discussion is about.
lemme explain. some possible origins of morality

a> god
b> society
c>individual
d>biological

i am going with the last.

Nitwit, of course eve's kin had to learn that it was "nice" to become members of a group that is not the family unit. It had to be able to trust that the other group(s) will uphold the survival of the group. Instinct had them in the fundamental group that is the family; a need for survival and a realization that the group-- if sharing common goals, increases the chances for survival--this was learnt.

see ape para. i see you adopt my jargon. progress. i suggest you get familiar with a typical gorilla posture. it will be appropiate.

Are you a nitwit? Modelling morality on the survivability of the group is not the same as morality is instinctive.

holy cow. is that the meaning you derive from my statements? tedious! how many times do i have to indicate that morality is not held to be instinctive. rather it has its roots in the social instincts. explain your reasoning step by step

Another stupid ploy.

ploy? to do what? i merely called you an idiot. i will do "dense" next time

You are repeating assertions I have already made; get a grip.

liar. show me what i parrot. arrange them side by side. failure to do so indicates trolling

The above is not equivalent to: the relevance is to show that contrary to your assertion that a functional society requires a religious basis for its moral practices.

alright. since you tried hard enough (3 times i think) i will concede that point. rest assured it will not happen again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, etc etc all did not have monotheism and yet had societies that had morality "invested" in divinity.

In Nahua cosmology, for example, the highest celestial level was inhabited by Ometeotl, a female/male god of duality who created the cosmos and continually created life. The goddess Tlazolteotl, "Filth Deity," was patroness of dust, filth, adulterers, and promiscuous women but was paired with the god Tezcatlipoca, "The Mirror's Smoke," a male trickster figure who regularly punished people for the very behavior he instigated. Together, Tlazolteotl and Tezcatlipoca could cause immorality, punish immoral people, and remove impurities from them. (Tlazolteotl was also called Tlaelcuani, "Eater of Foul Things.") This pair represented chaos and capriciousness among the deities--clearly, it was the gods, not humans, who were ultimately responsible for sexual transgressions. Simultaneously, however, the gods were responsible for restoring order to the chaos they caused. This coexistence of balance and instability was evident also in gender identity among the gods who could be female in one form and male in another. Deities of the earth and water were invoked in either gender and some gods were "gender-twinned," existing as male-female pairs.

http://iupjournals.org/jwh/jwh10-2.html

like the greeks, so do the aztecs.

next the hindus

Ethics can be described as the science of morality, and morality as the living of a virtuous life. Hindus place greater emphasis on the attitude of the mind rather than on postulation of the elaborate theories of what is right and what is wrong. Accordingly, the Hindu vision of morality and ethics is characterized by the following considerations:

*Morality proceeds from the inner spirit of man. In Hindu view, one's motive is as important in the performance of an action as the action itself. When the heart is pure and free from lust and greed, whatever one does to perform one's duties has a high moral value.

*Harmlessness to all creatures is the highest morality.

*There are four sources of right conduct: Vedas, the Smriti (secondary scriptures), the conduct of wise persons, and the individual's own judgment.

*In times of confusion and crisis regarding what is right and what is wrong, one's own conscience is the sole guide. "In times of doubt, O, son of Kunti [Arjuna], one must decide using one's own good sense."

*An individual is ultimately responsible for his own actions, i.e. the Law of Karma. He is also responsible for the actions of others if he induces or forces them to perform such actions.

*Hindus declare that loyalty to one's moral values is the highest loyalty, and of all the losses, loss of one's character and loss of judgment are the worse. Moral and Ethical Ideals of Hindus


2 down, 2 to go. i hope you comprehend the excerpts. if you need clarification ask.

 

Seems that you are evolving just as God imagined. Or not. Carry on.

 

Where is your list?

"never had' as in a flawed argument; I suppose simply comprehension is beyond you? As for how you have changed your arguments, consider the contradictions below:

------
BLOCK TWO:

Next,
Spock: i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.

Point:
1. "Basic" morality is hardwired into our systems. It is evident in the "altruism between a parent and a child".

Contradicts with: social instincts (hard wired) provide the foundation to a basic morality

----------
BLOCK THREE:
And then,
Spock:
then again perhaps more distinctions should be made. namely b/w ethics and morality. is it necessary? god dictates morality, the group dictates ethics.
personally it seems superfluous and redundant

Point:
1. God dictates morality and the group dictates ethics.

Contradicts with: i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems.

If you claim that it was due to advent of monotheism that had morality invested in religion, then why did societies before monotheism have morality? Does “God” dictate to you at birth what your morality is?

Too many conflicting assertions.
----------
BLOCK ZERO:
and with this, you engage in gross generalities while ignoring the various subtleties and diff expressions of law. we have evolved into complex societies and laws now deal with issues other than morality. think technicalities! (mrn) what moral basis would you assign to litter laws?

Without morality on what basis does law reside?

-----
BLOCK ONE
HED: I also think that it is this need for organization, accountability, etc within societies that prompted the meshing of morality into religion-- to give it more authority.

Spock: the needs you mention have nothing to do with investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society. the objective is fear of divine retribution. societies have ranged from the simple to the complex, from the formal to the informal. to claim that all societies require "organization, accountability" means nothing.

You make two points:
1. The "invest"ment of morality with religion was not to give it more authority, but rather, because of a fear of retribution from a divinity.

Contradicts with: excellent. you merely expand on my idea. do you think i am disputing the stated "hierarchy". why point that fact out?

The hierarchy that puts the divine ahead of the real means that when you invest morality in religion, you give it more authority.

2. Societies range from the simple to the complex and that the claim that they need organization and accountability to hold their order is meaningless

Contradicts with: first, where is it i said that societies do not need organization? the very concept of a society implies organization. my distinction was the level of org.

Besides, it is irrelevant what level of organization the society has. If it functions as a society, it will have a moral basis.
------
Next,
Spock; it is due to the advent of monotheism that found morality invested in divinity. previous to that ,gods were capricious and quite immoral. yet societies did just fine. perhaps better.

This point is stupid and incorrect as I have already shown. Simply look at the ancient societies I have listed.
--------

I also tire of repeating myself to an obvious nitwit. It is irritating; if you think my assertion that you are irritating is "whining", the I assert again, again, and again that you are irritating when you purposely change an argument of mine so you can challenge.

LOL!!! Sure, my idiotic fellow sciforumer, whatever floats your boat.

Nitwit, I look at your body of work. You asserted that morality is instinctive you fool. Now you change that assertion to morality is modeled on social instincts.

Stupid fool, you purposely take a statement out of context. That statement exists within this context: If two animals fight and the loser walks away, it is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority. This is not hardwired morality. You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group. The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival HED

LOL. You started challenging my assertions and so far you have done nothing. Methinks you are talking about yourself.

cHECK BLOCK TWO.

WOW.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Check BLOCK TWO.

How about you stop taking my quotes out of context?

Here is the entire exchange:

group vs parent/child dynamics while having some common aspects are not the same. familial ties are much stronger and if choices have to be made the interests of the group will be dumped in order to favor the family. Spock

Now this is an obvious that further debunks your moronic assertions. The familial ties are much stronger in the cases where there is bonding. Between the parent(mother) and the child, this bonding is even bioligical. When it is extrapolated to the group, it becomes artificial-- this is where morality comes into being-- the ties are specified.HED

Why do you always seem to miss the obvious? Take a clan of apes and then try to move them into another clan and see how they interact. They cannot. Their ability to form a cohesive group is of course evolutionary and the grouping/bonding is biological through developed behaviour patterns. Humans term their bonding. This formulation of rules that form our social basis is what we term morality.

I will.

Ack. Do you see how this contradicts with your assertion that morality is modeled on social instincts? If we model morality, it is not biological.

I quote in this context so that you can better comprehend what is being said. Now address the assertion.

You asserted this: hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.

Consider these two assertions by me:

Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.

As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.

Now tell me how that is not a concise and comprehensive statement about social instincts and the like.

You should concede every attempt to "debunk" my assertions made on that incorrect understanding of my original assertion. You should also concede every assertion of yours that I challenged.

 

The block shows a society that had morality invested in their religion. Theirs is also a non- monotheistic religion. This further support my point. What the hell is that?

 

The block shows a society that had morality invested in their religion. Theirs is also a non- monotheistic religion. This further support my point. What the hell is that?

no. you lack understanding. their gods, as with the greeks, were only concerned with their relations with humans. there are no dictates by the gods on how human should conduct their own affairs. as long as the proper respect was shown to them, they did not give a damn

This pair represented chaos and capriciousness among the deities--clearly, it was the gods, not humans, who were ultimately responsible for sexual transgressions.

do you see the gods being particularly moral here? do you not see that immorality is also being advanced?

if you think that the aztecs managed to build a civ according to capricious nature of their gods, you obviously havent a clue on how societies are formed. relying on whims and fancies is not an option

bottom line is there is no clear cut sense of moral rules that are given by the gods ala "ten commandment" style. you fail to notice the distinction being made

 

I think it is you that lack understanding. Who cares about moral advancement? It is irrelevant. The moral code in relation to the gods in essentially pleasing them. And in doing so, the gods rewards them with morality.

Read this book: City of Sacrifice : Violence From the Aztec Empire to the Modern Americas. Ignore his focus on the violence; it is irrelevant.

 

BLOCK TWO:
Point:
1. "Basic" morality is hardwired into our systems. It is evident in the "altruism between a parent and a child".

Contradicts with: social instincts (hard wired) provide the foundation to a basic morality[/b]

you fail to understand that the distinction b/w a basic morality and the social instinct is merely in the label. if morality is modeled on instincts, for all intents and purposes, they are the same. resorting to semantical nitpicking says a lot about your inherently weak position.[/color]

BLOCK THREE:

Point:
1. God dictates morality and the group dictates ethics.

Contradicts with: i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems.

If you claim that it was due to advent of monotheism that had morality invested in religion, then why did societies before monotheism have morality? Does “God” dictate to you at birth what your morality is?

Too many conflicting assertions.

you must be desperate. that was a random musing that had nothing to do with the argument i am developing. do you not notice the ""perhaps"? the "is it necessary? " i claim nothing. i was trying shit out. namely figuring out the distinctions b/w ethics and morality.

BLOCK ZERO:

Without morality on what basis does law reside?

heh
i said that morality is not the sole source of law. i give examples (litter laws) you agree...The evolution of new laws without a basis in morality (for instance, taxation, etc) (head) but yet you assert....The law must have a basis in morality for otherwise, it is meaningless in the sense that the group will not believe the law to have their interests accounted for.

we have ideas. we give them form. we envision relationships b/w these forms. we create rules governing these relationships. think abstract shit, think functional. everything is not characterized as good or bad. somethings just are

BLOCK ONE
You make two points:
1. The "invest"ment of morality with religion was not to give it more authority, but rather, because of a fear of retribution from a divinity.

heh
you read too much. where did i say it was'nt to give it more authority? when you read..."investing morality with a supernatural origin in order to enforce compliance within a society.", does it not follow that "enforcing compliance" thru a supernatural origin, is the same as attributing the supernatural with authority? that the very fact compliance to a supernatural agency is because it has authority?


Contradicts with: excellent. you merely expand on my idea. do you think i am disputing the stated "hierarchy". why point that fact out?

not relevant cos of above error in premise. you are confused

2. Societies range from the simple to the complex and that the claim that they need organization and accountability to hold their order is meaningless

Contradicts with: first, where is it i said that societies do not need organization? the very concept of a society implies organization. my distinction was the level of org.

this is the point i conceded. organization is implicit in the concept of a society. it is a very simple point and doe nothing to distract from the argument. mere semantics

Besides, it is irrelevant what level of organization the society has. If it functions as a society, it will have a moral basis.

again, where is this under dispute?
------

This point is stupid and incorrect as I have already shown. Simply look at the ancient societies I have listed.

i debunk as we speak.

purposely change an argument of mine so you can challenge.


here is your assertion...The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival.
my original assertion in a nutshell is.... the means by which the human aims to survive are hardwired not learnt. it is instinctive. you offer no explanations except simplistic platitudes while disagreeing with my hypothesis (not mine really, darwin's) this is the crux of the matter. now focus

Nitwit, I look at your body of work. You asserted that morality is instinctive you fool. Now you change that assertion to morality is modeled on social instincts.

liar. i hold that a basic morality is instinctive. it is then properly called a social instinct as the conventional meaning of morality suggest something that is learned. this is exactly why i qualified the term as basic. if you are unwillnig to see past that point and move on, i suspect you merely seek to preserve ego

Stupid fool, you purposely take a statement out of context. That statement exists within this context: If two animals fight and the loser walks away, it is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority. This is not hardwired morality. You have also not delineated your moronic assertion as to how this "altruism" between a parent and a child extrapolates to the whole group. The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival HED

now i do not believe you even know what it is to provide a context. i know fully well what you were referring to. you offer up..."t is because it is vanquished. It realises its own inferiority. " as a reason.

i will reiterate...you offer up an opinion as a statement of fact without an ounce of data to back it up. you do not understand as to who is calling the shots here. it is the victor that controls events. he allows the vanquished to walk away. the wolf instinctively understands that it is the best course of action for the group. they cooperate thru a ritual. (exposed belly) the group benefits(hunt in packs)!

Why do you always seem to miss the obvious? Take a clan of apes and then try to move them into another clan and see how they interact. They cannot.

random thought? pretending disputes where there are none?

Their ability to form a cohesive group is of course evolutionary and the grouping/bonding is biological through developed behaviour patterns. Humans term their bonding. This formulation of rules that form our social basis is what we term morality.

this is great. why do you argue with me? you wanna be a big shot and bring your own definitions? you prefer to say biological rather than instinctive?

you claim i have missed the obvious when you state the exact same thing? now as with apes, do you acknowledge that the initial stages of human interactions is also evolutionary and biological? and that morality (as we know it) developed from these "instincts"?

Ack. Do you see how this contradicts with your assertion that morality is modeled on social instincts? If we model morality, it is not biological.

heh
you dolt. i am aim to discover origins. i am not interested with the final analysis of morality. from where do we get our moral ideals. is it learnt? divined thru god's grace, biological?

Consider these two assertions by me:

Every society must have at its core, a certain organization and accountability for threats to this organization. Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a society without any form of organization? Even egalitarian societies have their organization in the notion of egalitarianism.

As it stands though, the conclusion you reach for an “instinctive” morality does not follow from the argument you provide. How does this “basic” morality that is “hardwired” into our “systems” ensure our survival as a species? This so called “altruism” between a parent and a child does not extend beyond the fundamental group—the family unit. There is no “hardwired” altruism towards other members of the society who are not part of said fundamental group.

Now tell me how that is not a concise and comprehensive statement about social instincts and the like.

you flatter yourself.

your mistake is is assuming that there has to be a master plan that circulates within the species that all are aware of. you assume that a particular member is aware of another seperated by geography. that is not the case.

the species is broken down to smaller units. it is thru each one of these individual units programmed instinct, that the parent unit (species) ensures survival.

when you get group a, group b, and group c, all working for the benefit of their individual groups, does it also not follow that the groups, collectively called a species survives?

that was pathetically easy

You should concede every attempt to "debunk" my assertions made on that incorrect understanding of my original assertion. You should also concede every assertion of yours that I challenged.

more fantasies. do not sheath that sword

 

that is funny.
you pick and choose the angle that backs your play up, tell me to read it, then ask me to ignore the ones that dont. you term this irrelevant!

hehe, quite the blatant little troll aint ya? what is this kindergarten?
lemme get the chinese and indians to fuck with you as well

 

LOL!!! Colour coded too!! Now it is mere 'semantics' and so forth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why don't you tell me specifically what you are challenging of my original or current assertions.

Also tell were you made the switch from basic morality to social instinct.

Yuck.

I"ll deal with the rest when I get bored...

 

What the hell are you talking???? I say ignore his focus on violence simply because he intends to particularly show how human sacrifice and the rest were so prevalent in Aztec society. It has no bearing on this discussion.

Also whether morality is advanced is irrelevant! We have not once mentioned moral advancement, nor have we even determined what would classify as advancement.

Don't change focus. Besides, if you actually believe that crap you are in need of some help; it would indicate an inability to see reality. I am certain though that you are merely being dishonest for the sake of a "victory" you simply won't have-- at least not with this topic.


Now. Address my counter to your damn assertion. If you want to concede your assertion as you should, do so.

 

LOL!!! Colour coded too!! Now it is mere 'semantics' and so forth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

keep your emotions under control, woman! and careful you dont pop yer eyes out

you have a lot of italics, i code quotes in italics. do you see how color gets past that problem? i seek to minimize confusion. hence the color

Why don't you tell me specifically what you are challenging of my original or current assertions.

here is your assertion...The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival.

my original assertion in a nutshell is.... the means by which the human aims to survive are hardwired not learnt. it is instinctive. you offer no explanations except simplistic platitudes while disagreeing with my hypothesis (not mine really, darwin's) this is the crux of the matter. now focus (quoted from red post)

Also tell were you made the switch from basic morality to social instinct.

i hold that a basic morality is instinctive. it is then properly called a social instinct as the conventional meaning of morality suggest something that is learned. this is exactly why i qualified the term as basic. if you are unwillnig to see past that point and move on, i suspect you merely seek to preserve ego (quoted from red post)

I"ll deal with the rest when I get bored...

spare me your life story

 

excellent
i sense desperation. i will soon roll out the big guns
yessiree bob. we are about to go...... atomic!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL. I am sure that we did not go two pages on just one challenge to an assertion...

As a challenge to this: The human aims simply to survive. Morality evolves as function to promote that survival. ??? You are saying the exact same thing!

Bah. I am sorry that I did not feel the need to have to reassert everything in the 'origin of the species'. The statement I made that the human aims to survive is prettu much standard knowledge now.

That you said morality is instinctive is where I challenged you. Take a break man, you need it.

LMAO. Where did you state that you are switching from basic morality to social instinct??? Morality and social instinct are not the same nor were they used in the same manner-- until the post before the red post.

LOL!! It is funny to see you trying to reinforce your ego.

 

excellent
i sense desperation.

Took you long enough to finally say that you are getting desperate. Groping for nonexistent walls I see..

 

LOL!! It is funny to see you trying to reinforce your ego.

my explanation of a technicalty is held to be a boosting of ego? how do you figure?

Took you long enough to finally say that you are getting desperate.

show me again where i said this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL. I am sure that we did not go two pages on just one challenge to an assertion...

backing down?

That you said morality is instinctive is where I challenged you.

you like an elephant in a china shop. you are unable to comprehend subtle distinctions. basic morality implies a version of morality at its formative stages. thit is what i have consistently asserted from the start. my morality was qualified to be rudimentary and held to be instinctual in nature. i speak of evolution.

LMAO. Where did you state that you are switching from basic morality to social instinct??? Morality and social instinct are not the same nor were they used in the same manner-- until the post before the red post.

Irrelevant. If you do not state what the hell you mean by "basic' morality I can assume whatever. (head)

"social instincts (hard wired) provide the foundation to a basic morality. (spook)"

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=481744#post481744 (11-29-03/11:26 AM)

btw "spock" flatters me. the guy was a hero

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!