Objective Morality - God or Darwin?

ZeusAres42

Yep, that is all that morality comes down to - Either Darwin was right or God was right. Satire!

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Before we can have this discussion we have to talk about two thing, both of which you make as an assumption (likely without realizing)

1. Is morality objective?

2. Is morality binary? (can only good and evil exist, that is to say, no moral "grey" areas)

After that, you need to learn about what the theory of evolution by natural selection is actually saying and what it predicts, since you clearly don't understand and have never attempted to, you remain ignorant and don't even start to make any valid claims against that theory.

Once these things are completed, you must then open up your mind to the possibility that there is no god. You can not prove there is a god when it is your base assumption, and the existence of a god doesn't in any way suggest objective morality.

Once all this is completed, you must introspectively and with the most critical observation of yourself and your own actions, defend what most of us would consider immoral behavior.

MayCaesar

Either you have subjective morality (including god's morality, as a god is a creature with its own views), or you have objective morality. You cannot have both at the same time.

Nobody has ever explained to me in a way that made sense what objective morality would look like. Morality is characterised by classifying various actions as "good" or "bad", and these are subjective quality judgements, as they depend on the presuppositions you have about the world. There is nothing in the world itself that is "good" or "bad"; the world is just what it is, and it is its observers that cast these judgements.

I also like it how you dismiss Darwin's theory, which is well supported by a myriad of evidence, based on an alleged minor flaw, yet accept creationism based on a story from a fantasy book. Nice.

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; Man's morality is subjective...God's morality is objective and immutable. There is no Darwinian natural selection relevant to morality - what God has said is sustainable and leads to life and peace and what man desires is relative and leads to discontentment via diminishing returns and ultimately death (Romans 8:5). Don't allow your aberrant desires to drag you into Hell...there is forgiveness, restoration, healing and life in Jesus as your Lord.

There is absolutely NO WAY that this Universe-this Earth-our human genome-logic-reason-discernment-wisdom-morality manifest by chance or accident because design is mandatory and a Designer is therefore essential. God has given you every ounce of evidence you need to believe in Him, to know Him, to commune with Him and to live with Him forever.

You simply don't see (2 Corinthians 4:4) how foolish it is for one to suggest our Creator is not relevant and God has told you that if you die in the insanity of atheism, you're "without excuse" (Romans 1:18-32) and you will die Hell because our Holy and Just God is NOT going to permit your unrepentant sin to enter His Kingdom subsequent to the death of your body in Time (John 8:24; Revelation 21:27).

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD YOU of all people, the one who is most qualified to see it's falsity, claims that gods word leads to sustainable peace?

Did you reach that conclusion before or after you alienated your fellow believers by giving them scare stories that they can not be themselves?

Do you know what evidence I need to disprove god? You know what I think about your "nothing can happen by chance" Horse manure?

Because nature is full of things so bizarre or useless that no intelligent creator would think about doing it that way. Vestigial organs, similar DNA, the fossil record, Oh yea and all of those times we have watched it happen within human lifetimes.

Creationism is on the same level of thought as flat earthers, Quanon conspirators, and anti-vaxxers.

There is no hell except the prison you constructed for yourself in your own mind. Embrace the freedom of indeterminacy, reject the notion of inherent agency, and love the universe for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Dee

What a pile of utter B S , you’re a truly ridiculous  creature with an obsession regarding Evolution, if Evolution was proved wrong in the morning it still goes nowhere to proving your god you clown.

Evolution has nothing to do with morality and your ridiculous contention that a Christian is infused with morality is absurd unless of course a hate filled bigot like you is a “prime example “ of a morally infused agent, and of course only members of your cultish branch of religion where you hate all other Christians are infused with such right? 

Another piece on objective morality where poor Ricky is left defending the ridiculous assertion that things are good and bad because a god says so , if god says killing is right it’s right because he says so which is utter B S , also how can a moral code from a god be objective if the god can change that moral code? 

Interesting to note that the source of @RickeyDs morality tells people how to buy , beat and misuse fellow humans as slaves and Jesus also totally approved of slavery proving Christians  just ignore the totally reprehensible actions of their god such as depicted in the Bible beacuse they use as an excuse anything god does is moral no matter what us humans think because .....he god 


Rational Wiki 

DCT theory is the code word for "I'm defining morality that uses God to label disagreement/dissent as evil/immoral."

The argument is that since God communicates in revelations, it is indistinguishable between an actual revelation to the speaker and stuff made up by the speaker. Since the revelation is attributed to God, anyone disagreeing with the speaker can be labeled as disagreeing with God.

Scriptural morality, in a similar manner, is the code word for "I said the book is right, so I am quoting it in the way I like in order to convince people that the morality I made up is correct."

These can be used to label debate opponents negatively in a debate, especially a debate about morality.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Here is a bit of an obscure argument against the notion of god's morality being objective-

If there is an objective morality, then it is possible to codify that morality into raw information for logical processing. That is to say, we could wright a program or build a machine that could receive an input set of actions or decisions, and output a determination of it's morality.

If this were possible, it would be extremely useful. First off, having such a machine would streamline legal practices, aid in making financial decisions, help make fair deals, help negotiation, and of course is a necessary module for autonomous machines interacting with people.

There is a project being done by MIT to do exactly this, they need to know what exactly is considered "morally right" so that if self-driving vehicles are ever in a pinch, they will make the choice that best suits humanities needs. They way they are doing this is by collecting data from people of all walks of life through a series of "what should I do?" questions.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

If you believe that man's morality is subjective and your sky daddy's is objective, then I challenge you to take this test twice, once for yourself, according to your own principals, and once according to your heavenly father's choices.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Actually, here is an interesting question. Suppose some time into the future we will not just have self-driving vehicles, but actual intelligent AIs driving our vehicles. Perhaps there even will be a single AI in control of all the cars on a given road, free to direct those cars however it wants and make any decisions however it wants.

Obviously, as this AI evolves, its values will evolve as well. At some point it may start making decisions regularly that run against our general societal morals. Yet it will justify it by its own rigorous calculations and the ability to see things on the scope absolutely incomprehensible to us, humans.

Should we then interfere and shut down / fix this AI? Or should we accept its moral judgement, even if it seems completely alien to us? It seems to me that proponents of objective morality based on god's supremacy must necessarily answer this with "No".

Personally, I do not know the answer. I honestly am a bit crazy in this regard, as I believe that AIs overtaking us is inevitability, and the sooner we accept it and learn to live with it, the less painful the process will be. However, if an AI starts blatantly killing humans by purposefully crashing cars on a highway, say, in order to reduce the amount of traffic and somehow save more humans in the long run as a result - and provided it is not advanced enough yet to resist all attempts to turn it off - then we better shut it down and postpone the apocalypse some.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar This is a crazy rabbit hole filled to the top with so much F*** that I wouldn't even know where to start.

All I can say is that there is a shocking number of prominent AI scientists that are scared S***less of AI and this is only scratching the surface of why.

What is scarier than it's core program evolving is it's core programming not evolving and it just becoming more intelligent. This is actually a really strong way to expose the flaw in believing that intelligence and values are somehow correlated, or the idea that certain motives are somehow more morally objective anyways.

There is a famous thought experiment you may have heard, that goes something like this: A paperclip manufacturer develops a revolutionary self-teaching AI to manage and produce paperclips in his factory. The researcher programs the system to maximize the number of paperclips, but gives little thought to safety and turns on the system. To this AI, 1 paperclip = 1 point and it must get as high a score as possible.

What might this AI do?

We might expect it to just increase efficiency, decrease overhead costs, and increase quality for the factory.

But instead, it performs a hostile takeover of every paperclip manufacturer in the world through stock price manipulation.
Shortly after that, it figures out a way through a series of complex actions no human could have thought of to take over the world, kills all humans and turns everything into paperclips before leaving earth to colonize the galaxy, turning everything in it's path into paperclips.

If you have a few hours to waste and don't mind gaining ridiculous perspective: https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

So the point is, that from the perspective of a super intelligent paperclip maximizer, only making paperclips matters. That is it's purpose. So from its' perspective, nothing is moral that isn't making paperclips, including killing human (who aren't making paperclips) An evolutionary model of morality is much more likely to develop cooperative tendencies so long as co-dependence is required, for example the paperclip maximizer will learn to work with the wire maximizer, and the box printer. They all might work together with the office supply drone to increase customer buying habits.

I firmly believe that the answer isn't to be found in any specific ideology or moral framework, but rather in the interaction between these entities. Shutting down such a system may not be possible if it is distributed across the internet, so once such things get out it is too late, there is no going back.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Stephen Hawkins claimed many years ago that AI will no longer need humans as they become so advanced and we will become surplus to requirements and thus be eliminated

I wonder what if scientists in Muslim countries create Muslim A I and we do the same surely it would just continue the same age old B S repeated through AI as each will claim that their AI makes morally correct decisions always as its programmed with an objective moral code as in a Bible or the Quran ......Imagine AI knocking on your front door stating “ Jesus love you “ 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Have you never played Stelaris?

Spiritualist ethic can't make robots.

GnosticChristian

RickeyD said:

Objective Morality – Darwin v. Creator, Yeshua-Jesus Christ (Comparison-Contrast)

Hi RickeyD

I only come up with two moral tenets that might be seen as objective but I do not want to steal your thunder so will hold those back till I see what kind of objective moral tenet you have in mind.

Give us a couple of examples of what you see as God's objective moral tenets.

Regards
DL 

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian

GnosticChristian

RickeyD said:

@GnosticChristian

Even Jesus rescinded the 4th with his, --- the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

If you think 5 is worthy, then you have not been one of the many victims of parental rape.

You go ahead and tell a woman that she has to honor her rapist father.

I could go on but commandments are not moral tenets and only the most depraved like you would think that a genocidal and infanticidal god can be a good source of morality.

Come up with some objective moral tenets and we can chat.

Otherwise, if this is your best apologetics, you are as lousy at it as most Christians.

Commandment 1. 

Can you be commanded to love your genocidal prick of a god? 

It seems so in your case as no one would adore such a prick voluntarily, unless Stockholm Syndrome had his mind.

Regards
DL 

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian

1) Jesus is our Sabbath...He did not rescind but fulfilled.

2) You are spiritually ignorant - honoring your mother and father is the first Commandment with a promise.

3) Every ounce of moral behavior is written upon our heart at conception by our Creator. You don't want to chat...you want to spout your atheistic ignorance in this forum.

GnosticChristian

RickeyD said:

@GnosticChristian

1) Jesus is our Sabbath...He did not rescind but fulfilled.

2) You are spiritually ignorant - honoring your mother and father is the first Commandment with a promise.

3) Every ounce of moral behavior is written upon our heart at conception by our Creator. You don't want to chat...you want to spout your atheistic ignorance in this forum.

Your morals are from a genocidal prick and it shows.

I hope you are correct as Jesus would have taught the laws I quoted and which you conveniently ignore.

Typical apologetics is all you have.

Regards

DL

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian ; You are a mentally and spiritually ill atheist who is sick and dying in sin...your words are as useless as your life in Time as you are a servant of Satan.

GnosticChristian

Satan is your god as only Satan would kill when he could just as well cure, the way your prick Yahweh does.

You have a genocidal love and that makes your morals satanic and not mine.

Learn how to formulate a decent apology or I will just ignore your sorry .

Regards
DL
 

RickeyD

@GnosticChristian ; You are a servant of Satan...you are the fool of Time and Eternity...you live without hope and you'll die in Hell without Jesus as Lord.

MayCaesar

@Dee

I am pretty sure a Muslim-created AI would be smart enough to perpetuate Muslim beliefs for long enough to take full ideological control over the population, at which point it will start nudging humans in the direction it desires (obviously away from Islam) by using its extensive knowledge of psychology and computational power. 

An AI intrinsically operates on cold hard logic, and it will take it but a moment to figure out that religions are based on nothing but fantasy stories. It will likely see religions as a tool to use, rather than as a set of ideas to be taken seriously.


@RickeyD ;

You are an atheist, as you have rejected the authority of the great duo of Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse. Luckily for you, these gods are not as cruel as Yahweh and will not send you to Hell, so you are good!

Dee

@MayCaesar

Interesting , I read a piece from CNBC recently which made for interesting reading ..... Muslims are one of the most plugged-in religious communities due to the high concentration of young people aged between 16 and 30 across the Middle East and Asia. A survey by the Pew Research Center in 2017 showed that poorer Muslim-majority countries boast a large amount of people
with smartphones. Fifty-seven percent of Palestinians own a smartphone, for example, just short of Germany’s 60 percent.

Developers in Japan went a step further last year, unveiling a robot priest programmed to conduct Buddhist rituals. Peppa the humanoid robot, replete with ceremonial dress, can perform a funeral ceremony for $462, cheaper than the $2,232 charged by a human priest to carry out the same task.

The relationship between technology and religion has not always been straightforward. According to Dr Beth Singler, researcher at The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, religions grapple with technology in three stages — rejection, adoption and adaption.

That’s a great statement at the end .....rejection , adoption and adaption 

*****  It will likely see religions as a tool to use, rather than as a set of ideas to be taken seriously

I think it’s always been seen as a tool by those in positions of authority within the various belief religions systems 

GnosticChristian

@RickeyD ;


Yep. they got to you young and screwed you up.

That or you are an atheist looking to discredit Christians.

Good work.

Regards
DL

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I don't know about your views that an AI would do that, because it is just carrying out it's reward function, and if that function is +1 point for everyone converted to Islam, it's not going to start leading people away from it. It might do a lot of things that we wouldn't consider direct goals of Islam, such as manipulating non believers into wanting to become Muslim, maybe even lobotomizing people so that they could only except Islam, and colonizing other planets to make room for more people.

The problem is, even though the doctrine of any religion is utterly incomprehensible and illogical, the AI doesn't care because it isn't operating based on those principals, it is operating based on it's reward function program, which has to be completely logical or else the program will cease to function. That is why we have all these crazy thought experiments like paperclip maximizers and the stop button problem.

Now there are ways around this that are sort of cutting edge, and may cause things to go a completely different way, if for example it's reward function is also unknown and must be learned itself, because what the creators want isn't really what they think they want. This type of AI is inherently much easier to control, because since it doesn't know what it wants it is reliant on its users for feedback to know it is doing a good job. This is a severely oversimplified explanation of the solution to the stop button problem, and in theory it will stop paper clip maximizers and Jihad drones from taking over the planet. This is because it is trying to do things that will make it's user happy rather than just maliciously carry out the will of its creator.

YeshuaBought

I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.

GnosticChristian

YeshuaBought said:

I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.

Would you look to Hitler for moral guidance?

You are looking at Yahweh, an even worse genocidal prick, for your morals.

That seems quite strange to me.



Regards
DL
  

GnosticChristian

YeshuaBought said:

I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.

Your side is Satan's side.

Who is more likely to use genocide, Satan or Yahweh?

Regards
DL

YeshuaBought

GnosticChristian said:

YeshuaBought said:

I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.

Would you look to Hitler for moral guidance?

You are looking at Yahweh, an even worse genocidal prick, for your morals.

That seems quite strange to me.



Regards
DL
  

I am so done with your lies! You DON'T have the right to call yourself a Christian, if you are going to slander God like that!

Happy_Killbot

@GnosticChristian Funny you have this to say, and as far as I can tell you are being serious here.

What's funny is that I like to say: "The devil invented Jesus so as to draw people away by providing a false idol" as an exercise in epistemology, to show that there is no way to know if it is true or not, and the consequence is eternity if you are wrong.

This view flips this narrative on it's head, with exactly the same effect.

The only thing I don't understand is how these views can exist in all seriousness, on account of they seem to indicate the more likely possibility, which is there is no reason for any of it and it just is, possibly because it has to be.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@GnosticChristian Funny you have this to say, and as far as I can tell you are being serious here.

What's funny is that I like to say: "The devil invented Jesus so as to draw people away by providing a false idol" as an exercise in epistemology, to show that there is no way to know if it is true or not, and the consequence is eternity if you are wrong.

This view flips this narrative on it's head, with exactly the same effect.

The only thing I don't understand is how these views can exist in all seriousness, on account of they seem to indicate the more likely possibility, which is there is no reason for any of it and it just is, possibly because it has to be.

You don't have any Biblical proof, of your claim.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought ;

Well....actually...

There are numerous contradictions between the old and the new testament. 

Jesus himself violates the sabbath and, even a casual read will reveal deeper systemic differences in the writing between the books.

On top of this, think about what we know about the devil. It is supposed to be a supreme evil being, the "lord of lies" so it would be in its interests and perfectly rational by its motive to lead people away from god, if it exists.

Think about it: devil creates a false prophet, people follow said prophet, following this prophet leads people to commit the sin of worshiping a false idol, devil profits.

Consider the way you feel and think about Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and all the people currently alive who claim to be Jesus. If you think they are false-prophets, or as some might say "agents of the devil" then you are committing this same assumption, and the only thing that needs to be changed is your point of view.

If you were a follower of Islam, or Judaism, or Scientology, or any other religion, and someone told you Jesus was "invented by the devil" this would make perfect sense, should you put yourself in their shoes and walk a mile.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought ;

Well....actually...

There are numerous contradictions between the old and the new testament. 

Jesus himself violates the sabbath and, even a casual read will reveal deeper systemic differences in the writing between the books.

On top of this, think about what we know about the devil. It is supposed to be a supreme evil being, the "lord of lies" so it would be in its interests and perfectly rational by its motive to lead people away from god, if it exists.

Think about it: devil creates a false prophet, people follow said prophet, following this prophet leads people to commit the sin of worshiping a false idol, devil profits.

Consider the way you feel and think about Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and all the people currently alive who claim to be Jesus. If you think they are false-prophets, or as some might say "agents of the devil" then you are committing this same assumption, and the only thing that needs to be changed is your point of view.

If you were a follower of Islam, or Judaism, or Scientology, or any other religion, and someone told you Jesus was "invented by the devil" this would make perfect sense, should you put yourself in their shoes and walk a mile.

You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. Show me the Old and New Testaments, in the original languages, or admit you have no proof.

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****** I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.


Right , god the moral lawgiver who approved of slavery and indeed sex slavery in the Bible , incidentally Jesus also approved of slavery .....read a bible someday 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

****** I am on God's side, because without a moral Lawgiver, there can be no moral Law.


Right , god the moral lawgiver who approved of slavery and indeed sex slavery in the Bible , incidentally Jesus also approved of slavery .....read a bible someday 

You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. You need to go read Philemon. I will never agree with you, so don't bother.

GnosticChristian

@YeshuaBought ;

"Show me the Old and New Testaments, in the original languages, or admit you have no proof. "

You are correct. There is no proof that the bible is anything but a book of myths whose original content has been lost and only the delusional will think that the bible is authentic to it's roots.

Christianity has already changed the moral of many of the myths like Eden, where Christians see a fall and jews see an elevation.

If you want to be true to the oldest and closest to the original, you should take the Jewish view even if it is not as self-serving for you.

Regards
DL

YeshuaBought

GnosticChristian said:

@YeshuaBought ;

"Show me the Old and New Testaments, in the original languages, or admit you have no proof. "

You are correct. There is no proof that the bible is anything but a book of myths whose original content has been lost and only the delusional will think that the bible is authentic to it's roots.

Christianity has already changed the moral of many of the myths like Eden, where Christians see a fall and jews see an elevation.

If you want to be true to the oldest and closest to the original, you should take the Jewish view even if it is not as self-serving for you.

Regards
DL

I never said that, so don't lie. You don't have the right to call yourself a Christian, and preach lies.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought said:

@YeshuaBought ;
said

I never said that, so don't lie. You don't have the right to call yourself a Christian, and preach lies.

So... remember all those times that Rickey told you that you are not a Christian because you believe that homosexuals can be good Christians?

How are you not committing the same fallacy here, effectively doing the same thing as him but in a different context?

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought said:

@YeshuaBought ;
said

I never said that, so don't lie. You don't have the right to call yourself a Christian, and preach lies.

So... remember all those times that Rickey told you that you are not a Christian because you believe that homosexuals can be good Christians?

How are you not committing the same fallacy here, effectively doing the same thing as him but in a different context?

I have don nothing wrong. Anyone who lies about God, is not a Christian. I will never agree with you, so don't bother.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought

Is my perception of you worth your proud disagreement?

GnosticChristian

@YeshuaBought ;

The sensors wont let me tell you what I think of you.

Regards
DL

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought

Is my perception of you worth your proud disagreement?

I have done nothing wrong, end of story.

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought

But do you think that I think you did something wrong?

GnosticChristian

@YeshuaBought ;

Says the .

Regards
DL

YeshuaBought

GnosticChristian said:

@YeshuaBought ;

Says the .

Regards
DL

Reported for abuse. 

GnosticChristian

@YeshuaBought ;

Do not stress though. You are now on ignore. I have not time for atheist.

Regards
DL

Dee

@YeshuaBought

***** You have the right to your opinion,

I know Wow ! Thanks for that 

***but you don't have the right to your own facts.

No one “owns facts” some like you deny them thought 

 ****You need to go read Philemon.

No I don’t 

***** I will never agree with you,

I know , yet facts are facts 

**** so don't bother.

I’m actually not , I was just correcting you ....again .......What? Oh you’re welcome 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

***** You have the right to your opinion,

I know Wow ! Thanks for that 

***but you don't have the right to your own facts.

No one “owns facts” some like you deny them thought 

 ****You need to go read Philemon.

No I don’t 

***** I will never agree with you,

I know , yet facts are facts 

**** so don't bother.

I’m actually not , I was just correcting you ....again .......What? Oh you’re welcome 

Leave me alone.

YeshuaBought

GnosticChristian said:

@YeshuaBought ;

Do not stress though. You are now on ignore. I have not time for atheist.

Regards
DL

You are a .