Mr anony:
Pardon me but from an evolutionary perpective, this is no different from saying

Just the other day, a man was growling to the moonlight and running on all fours.

I was making a joke but you're welcome to explain what you mean.

Mr anony:
again he switches
.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he argues that morality is based on empathy and judgment then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that animals with empathy and judgment are not the sort of animals that make moral decisions[/size].......

Sarcasm from me.

thehomer:
You know, I've answered more than my share of questions here. I'll answer this and you'll have to answer questions that I already posed before that you ignored.

It is a fact of their biology.

This does not answer anything at all and you know it

What is God's nature?

perfect

What is his purpose?

What is objectively morally right? (I'm assuming you are referring to how he want humans to act morally.)

Deep Sight:

It is amazing that you do not see that for 99 per cent of human history, most human societies have been run based on dominance and subjugation by violence exactly as happens with other social predatory territorial animals. . . . . .

Exactly? Really? Do you have any reports on humans killing and eating their spouses after intercourse?

thehomer:

Dogs aren't the sorts of creatures that make moral judgements.

This kind of statement is very offensive to a dog lover, such as myself. I have not lived a day in my life since I was born without dogs as part of my family and as such I know dogs very well. Dogs have a VERY keen sense of society. They know their place within a home. The ALWAYS recognize who the head of the house is. They will protect you with their lives from ANY attacker or violence. They show uncommon loyalty FAR exceeding that of human beings.

They also have a sense of DUTY AND WORK. That's why they can be employed in the Police and Army and given ranks. They solve puzzles. They have a MASSIVE sense of GUILT when they have done things that they ought not to. They pretend. They deliberately deceive when they want to.

Most importantly, they love and they grieve. They would go to astonishing lengths to meet up with a loved one, canine or human.

Please do not speak of things that you do not know. If morality if based on empathy, many animals evidently have huge amounts of empathy. And they do make choices. I have seen a Lioness grieve over her cub with a broken back, but sit quietly to make a decision on whether to abandon him or not. She made the very self conscious decision that he would not make it and abandoned him; issuing sounds of grief as she did: and then went on a murderous tirade instantly against the herd that trampled him. Be there.

thehomer:

Exactly? Really? Do you have any reports on humans killing and eating their spouses after intercourse?

Don't be silly. Do you have any reports on Lions committing genocide or blasphemy. Each predatory territorial animal has its ways. You simply cannot accuse an animal (man) of being bad or evil for being predatory and territorial.

Mr anony:
This does not answer anything at all and you know it

It answers everything as far as I can see. It also explains why they don't speak.

Mr anony:
perfect

Then how could he have made anything imperfect?

Mr anony:
What is objectively morally right? (I'm assuming you are referring to how he want humans to act morally.)

That is a question not an answer. Try to answer the question or have you suddenly forgotten how to answer a question using your own terms? You did that before using the word "sacred". Answer my own question using your own terms. We can explore the terms after we have a general sense of the implications.

thehomer:
You say this as if there are no significant differences between the species.

Again, "what are these "significant differences"?

thehomer: I didn't say it wasn't an animal. It was the one I chose to make my point using that as an example. You on the other hand just seem to be confused about the point.

Ok then let's try the equally animal example of the dog

thehomer: I was making a joke but you're welcome to explain what you mean.

ok joke it was

thehomer: Sarcasm from me.

meh

Deep Sight:

Don't be silly. Do you have any reports on Lions committing genocide or blasphemy. Each predatory territorial animal has its ways. You simply cannot accuse an animal (man) of being bad or evil for being predatory and territorial.

Now you persist in your buffoonery. Need I remind you that you're the one making the argument that they're no different from humans. I'm arguing the contrary.

Deep Sight:

This kind of statement is very offensive to a dog lover, such as myself. I have not lived a day in my life since I was born without dogs as part of my family and as such I know dogs very well. Dogs have a VERY keen sense of society. They know their place within a home. The ALWAYS recognize who the head of the house is. They will protect you with their lives from ANY attacker or violence. They show uncommon loyalty FAR exceeding that of human beings.

They also have a sense of DUTY AND WORK. That's why they can be employed in the Police and Army and given ranks. They solve puzzles. They have a MASSIVE sense of GUILT when they have done things that they ought not to. They pretend. They deliberately deceive when they want to.

Most importantly, they love and they grieve. They would go to astonishing lengths to meet up with a loved one, canine or human.

Please do not speak of things that you do not know. If morality if based on empathy, many animals evidently have huge amounts of empathy. And they do make choices. I have seen a Lioness grieve over her cub with a broken back, but sit quietly to make a decision on whether to abandon him or not. She made the very self conscious decision that he would not make it and abandoned him; issuing sounds of grief as she did: and then went on a murderous tirade instantly against the herd that trampled him. Be there.

This still doesn't negate what I've said. If your dog defaecates on your sofa, do you hold it morally responsible in the same way that you would hold a 25 year old friend of yours responsible for doing the same thing?

thehomer:

Now you persist in your buffoonery. Need I remind you that you're the one making the argument that they're no different from humans. I'm arguing the contrary.

Lol @ the bold.

Same man who says categorically that men are apes.

So, you are arguing that humans are different from animals. At the same time you say humans are animals.

I can't laff enough. This takes the cake for indolent thinking. Good afternoon jare.

Please answer my questions 2moro.

Mr anony:
Again, "what are these "significant differences"?

I've answered this in so many ways but you just keep on repeating the question. There are significant differences in judgement, science, empathy, biology and other such features.

Do you think there are no significant differences?

Mr anony:
Ok then let's try the equally animal example of the dog

You use that and make your point. I've chosen the animal I would rather use for mine.

Mr anony:
ok joke it was


meh

For some reason you started hopping all over it.

thehomer:
It answers everything as far as I can see. It also explains why they don't speak.

But their biology allows them both to force other members of their species to have sex against their will, it also allows man and animals to kill other members of their species. These are similarities their biology allows. Why subject the exact same actions to different moral scales

Then how could he have made anything imperfect?

He didn't

That is a question not an answer. Try to answer the question or have you suddenly forgotten how to answer a question using your own terms? You did that before using the word "sacred". Answer my own question using your own terms. We can explore the terms after we have a general sense of the implications.

That is an answer. You have admitted that there is such a thing as the way man ought to behave. A purpose of a thing is exactly that: The way the thing ought to behave. Or what do yo think "purpose" means?

Deep Sight:

Lol @ the bold.

Same man who says categorically that men are apes.

Of course they're apes. Or do you think they're fish or hoofed animals or what?

Deep Sight:
So, you are arguing that humans are different from animals. At the same time you say humans are animals.

I can't laff enough. This takes the cake for indolent thinking. Good afternoon jare.

Please answer my questions 2moro.

I seriously don't see the confusion here at all but you're obviously still confused.

thehomer:

I've answered this in so many ways but you just keep on repeating the question. There are significant differences in judgement, science, empathy, biology and other such features.

Do you think there are no significant differences?

The question you have not yet answered is in what way are they "significantly different" and how that ought to play out in the context of morality. All you keep doing is repeating that they are significantly different.

Mr anony:
But their biology allows them both to force other members of their species to have sex against their will, it also allows man and animals to kill other members of their species. These are similarities their biology allows. Why subject the exact same actions to different moral scales

Their biology also prevents them from having complex thoughts and cultures.

Mr anony:
He didn't

So is man a perfect being or not?

Mr anony:
That is an answer. You have admitted that there is such a thing as the way man ought to behave. A purpose of a thing is exactly that: The way the thing ought to behave. Or what do yo think "purpose" means?

What is God's purpose? That is my question.

Mr anony:
The question you have not yet answered is in what way are they "significantly different" and how that ought to play out in the context of morality. All you keep doing is repeating that they are significantly different.

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for. What sort of answer do you want?

Again, do you think there are no significant differences between humans and other animals? If you do, then surely you realize that this entire line of questioning is moot. So why don't you tell me whether or not you think there are significant differences before I bother with looking at the sort of answer you want.

thehomer:
Their biology also prevents them from having complex thoughts and cultures.

"complex" another vague word. In what ways are your thoughts more complex than those of a dog or a lion?

So is man a perfect being or not?

The question is not whether man is perfect or not. The question is whether God made man imperfect? Here's what the bible says about that

See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Ecclesiastes 7:29

What is God's purpose? That is my question.

What is objectively morally good?

thehomer:
Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for. What sort of answer do you want?

Again, do you think there are no significant differences between humans and other animals? If you do, then surely you realize that this entire line of questioning is moot. So why don't you tell me whether or not you think there are significant differences before I bother with looking at the sort of answer you want.

We are here talking about morality. You have claimed that other animals are "significantly different" from humans.

My question is in what way are they significantly different in a moral sense? for instance, how is dog rape "significantly different" from human rape in a moral sense? How is a lion killing another lion and taking over his family significantly different in a moral sense from a man doing the exact same thing to another man and his family?

Mr anony:
"complex" another vague word. In what ways are your thoughts more complex than those of a dog or a lion?

I can think about a black hole, they cannot.

Mr anony:
The question is not whether man is perfect or not. The question is whether God made man imperfect? Here's what the bible says about that

See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Ecclesiastes 7:29

Still boils down to the same thing. If God made man perfect and placed him in a perfect world, how come he is now imperfect? Or if God didn't make man perfect or placed him in an imperfect world, why would he do that?

Mr anony:
What is objectively morally good?

And here we see the question that just halts you in your tracks. Rather than answering a direct question, you try to sidestep it by presenting something else.

Just answer my question. What is God's purpose?

Mr anony:
We are here talking about morality. You have claimed that other animals are "significantly different" from humans.

My question is in what way are they significantly different in a moral sense? for instance, how is dog rape "significantly different" from human rape in a moral sense? How is a lion killing another lion and taking over his family significantly different in a moral sense from a man doing the exact same thing to another man and his family?

And I've said again that lions and dogs aren't the sorts of animals that can make moral decisions. Making moral decisions require certain features that dogs and lions don't have or that they have to limited degrees. e.g can a lion stop itself from copulating based on introspection? Humans can and that is a significant difference.

As you can see, I've answered your direct questions but that one question of God's purpose just prompts you to throw out irrelevant questions. As I've said before, just decide on what you want think it means to be objectively morally good and answer your question. We'll explore whether or not it is really objective or morally good when we see your response to that question.

thehomer:
e.g can a lion stop itself from copulating based on introspection?

Yes of course they do, and this shows your ignorance about animals.

Deep Sight:

Yes of course they do, and this shows your ignorance about animals.

This shows your ignorance about the requirements for decision making.

@ thehomer. Do you accept my deal for you to closely reflect on these questions for 24 hours and revert to me tomorrow. Please the questions are all very important, but I request that you pay special attention to Question No 3: it is the most important.

1. Are humans predatory territorial animals?

2. Do predatory territorial animals fight and kill one another for resources, territory and se.xual mates?

3. Is this in fact observable among humans?

thehomer:

This shows your ignorance about the requirements for decision making.

Lol. Are you telling me that Lions do not make informed decisions about staying away from another Lion's female pride members? Decisions based on the strength and territory of that other Lion and his pride, which strength and territory are clearly discerned by the Lion so deciding?

Please, start watching Natgeo Wild!

@ Pastor AIO, I see you lurking there. I guess it is meet, right and proper that you have to keep silent since you have realized the futility of saying anything, since we cannot know anything or ever make any moral judgment on any situation whatsoever.

LOL.

Deep Sight:
@ Pastor AIO, I see you lurking there. I guess it is meet, right and proper that you have to keep silent since you have realized the futility of saying anything, since we cannot know anything or ever make any moral judgment on any situation whatsoever.

LOL.

LOL

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer. Do you accept my deal for you to closely reflect on these questions for 24 hours and revert to me tomorrow. Please the questions are all very important, but I request that you pay special attention to Question No 3: it is the most important.

1. Are humans predatory territorial animals?

2. Do predatory territorial animals fight and kill one another for resources, territory and se.xual mates?

3. Is this in fact observable among humans?

The best you can do with any answer I give to these questions is to go for a naturalistic fallacy. I don't need 24 hours to show you why any answer I give to these won't help you.

^^^ Aite, answer them now, thanks. Particularly Q 3.

Deep Sight:

Lol. Are you telling me that Lions do not make informed decisions about staying away from another Lion's female pride members? Decisions based on the strength and territory of that other Lion and his pride, which strength and territory are clearly discerned by the Lion so deciding?

Please, start watching Natgeo Wild!

I'm telling you that lions aren't introspective.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Aite, answer them now, thanks. Particularly Q 3.

Humans have been known to kill others for mates.

The Extra Terrestrial Intelligence Example.

You are an Extra Terrestrial Being. You are flying about the universe researching planets and creatures and ecosystems. You Come across the Earth.

On the Earth, you find and study many animals. Man is one of such animals, the most intelligent that you find.

You see that ALL the animals engage in some form of predatory territorial behavior or the other, for their survival and desires.

You see that man, being the most intelligent, also engages in same: i.e: scavenging, murdering, for resources and territory.

You conclude that all other animals on the Earth you have found can do this and it is not wrong for them to do this for their survival but it is wrong for the smartest animal amongst them to do same in smarter ways.

thehomer:

I'm telling you that lions aren't introspective.

Do they make decisions based on empathy or fear during their lives?

thehomer: I can think about a black hole, they cannot.

Perhaps you missed the point of my question. What do you mean when you say that a mind is complex? To use your example, how is a mind that can think about blackholes more complex than one that cannot?

Still boils down to the same thing. If God made man perfect and placed him in a perfect world, how come he is now imperfect? Or if God didn't make man perfect or placed him in an imperfect world, why would he do that?

Man has chosen to do evil and hence made himself imperfect.

And here we see the question that just halts you in your tracks. Rather than answering a direct question, you try to sidestep it by presenting something else.

Just answer my question. What is God's purpose?

The question really doesn't bug me. Asking you a question in reply is just my way of getting you to really examine your question. Well since you've pushed on and on, let me answer you in the way you want to be answered.

God's moral purpose for man is that man acts in a way that is objectively morally right. Satisfied?

And I've said again that lions and dogs aren't the sorts of animals that can make moral decisions. Making moral decisions require certain features that dogs and lions don't have or that they have to limited degrees. e.g can a lion stop itself from copulating based on introspection? Humans can and that is a significant difference.

Hmm,
If I get you correctly, you are saying that because an animal lacks the ability to think about it's actions (very debatable but I'll agree for now), It cannot be held morally responsible for them. Would the following not apply to an animal's lack of mathematical or rational/logical ability as grounds upon which we can say it isn't as intelligent as man and hence we ought not to have the same expectations for it?

Now let us inspect your comment shall we?

To introspect and decide for or against an action in this context is to morally evaluate the action. This presupposes that there is an objective moral standard against which the action is evaluated as right or wrong and then consequently acted upon accordingly. I hope you do realize that this is much the same way a person will sit and ponder over a logical problem or a mathematical problem and then proceed to act according to it.

Once again, by trying to run away from it, you have run right back to the reality that morality is objective and not only that, a man who goes against objective moral principles does not merely have a different opinion rather he has a wrong one.

Now we have agreed that people can be objectively morally wrong. The next question that follows is why are our moral principles the way they are? Why do our moral principles compel us to live by them. Why is it that moral principles are not merely as they are but point to us as we ought to be? Why is our existence subject to a certain moral reality? When you begin to truly and seriously ponder this, you'll be well on your way to discovering your creator.