Where do morals come from?

[Mokele]

It depends on the precise focus of the topic.

 

Morality, in the broad, philosophical sense, Good and Evil with capital letters is problematic at best.

 

However, 'morals' can also be understood as behavior, and why humans do what they do is a legitimate scientific question, as is evaluating the hypothesis that morals are a result of our evolution as a social troop primate.

[iNow]

And anyway, this thread has devolved into yet another religion bash, so is against the rules.

Actually, no. You seem only to be demonstrating your over sensitivity to offense on this topic, as most reasonable viewers can plainly see that religion has not come up at all in this thread for several months.

 

Unless, of course, you see a "focus on facts and scientific research" to be "religion bashing." If that's the case, then I can't help but to agree with your assertion.

[Severian]

http://pactiss.org:8080/ct/critica/religions-parasitic-morality

Religion's parasitic morality

 

 

This post was hardly "several months" ago. And whether or not I take offence is not relevant to the rules.

[iNow]

Well, then report that post. It was a direct response to the claims made in the OP. It rebutted them.

 

However, if you have a problem with it, then report it.

Either way, I'm not sure how you go from one post with a link to an argument which has a provocative title to asserting that the entire thread is a "religion bash." Again, stop being so sensitive and prone to offense.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's the kicker...

 

You'd rather censor arguments which disagree with your worldview than argue against them on the merits. That is below you, Severian. I've read your posts here. You're a bright guy. If you see fault in the arguments put forward, then use your intelligence to rebut them... Don't claim offense and start trying to have them deleted. I have been arguing about morality, not religion. The only reason religion has played a role at all is because of the need to rebut the views of believers that one cannot be moral without religious teachings... Plainly false, as shown in this very thread.

Edited May 28, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, look. Religious topics were ditched years ago when we removed the religion forum. I realize that this thread had moved away from the religious end when Severian brought it up, but it appears it's back now that he's mentioned it, so a warning: If this thread does devolve into more religious discussion it will be closed. That's not censoring worldviews, that's the rules.

 

Please move back to the original topic.

[Severian]

You'd rather censor arguments which disagree with your worldview than argue against them on the merits.

 

I tried for a very long time on these fora to argue against atheist bigotry, but it always devolves into name calling. This is a science forum, not a religion forum, so I can certainly see the reasoning for banning such discussions.

 

I have been arguing about morality, not religion. The only reason religion has played a role at all is because of the need to rebut the views of believers that one cannot be moral without religious teachings... Plainly false, as shown in this very thread.

 

Bullshit on so many levels. Firstly, you can discuss the causes of behaviour all you want, but morality is subjective, so not scientific (see Mokele's post). Secondly, there wasn't a single religious person posting before we devolved into a discussion about "religiously motivated rants". Indeed, can you even tell me who the "believers" in this thread (before I posted) are?

 

I can... and the only believer is... you. You are the rabidly set in your own untestable, unconfirmable, unprovable world view, shoving it down everyone's throat whether they like it or not.

[Mokele]

Please move back to the original topic.

 

This seemed fairly clear to me.