1. I never said they did. This, like most of your response is incoherent. You did not honestly take in anything I had to say.
2. No, no more than we're committing murder when we eat a steak. It does when it kills another lion though. Species have moral instincts against killing or harming their own kind, not against eating other animals. As someone pointed out once, even during a feeding frenzy pirahna never attack each other.
3. How exactly would it be "claimed" as rape by a lion? You're saying that species have no social instincts guiding their behavior whatsoever? So a school of fish has no instincts telling them to stay close and swim in the same direction? A lion will just as gladly eat it's fellow lions as it will a gazelle?
4. No, he doesn't. The quote you gave is talking about the properties of the universe being indifferent, not evolved species having no sense of right or wrong. In other words gravity accellerates everything downward at the same rate whether it's pulling a game-winning free throw into the hoop or pulling your head toward concrete to kill you. It is by definition constant which is by definition indifferent. Animals on the other hand have the same basic psychology we do in many cases. If animals are "pitiless and indifferent" as you mis-quote dawkins saying, how do you account for this:
5. Are you saying animals don't love and want to protect their offspring or members of their group? Seriously?
6. You think you're some genius for pointing out to me that hand grenades kill people like I didn't know that?
7. Stop being dishonest and deal with what I actually said.
8. I didn't say that god said raping children was good, stop lying and deal with what I actually said. Or just don't respond if you're not going to.
9. So is it wrong to rape a child because it would harm the child or is it wrong because god decrees it's wrong? And if the latter, if god said it's good would it be morally good (even though it still does the same harm)?
10. I went out on a limb and guessed there are no slavery supporters here. Are you saying there are racists on this forum? I just read in the youtube guidelines that videos posted must be "mostly non-racist", so who knows.
11. That isn't what subjective and objective mean. Something is objective if it exists outside of the human mind, ie an atom or a chair or the planet. It can be verified by others to exist. Morality is just as much an objective part of human (and animal) nature as sexuality or anger or anything else.
12. Then how is that different than what I said that if right and wrong are dictated by the intrinsic nature of things and if god created life and people and the universe with specific properties he is by definition the author of morality. You chose to ignore that and misrepresent my other comments instead.
1. I quoted you stating this....
"I think morality is grounded in natural law"
Again you forget what you post, (honestly you need to get a doctor to look at these memory lapses). Its in your post #72 if you wanted to check.
2. Really? So when males kill each other over females this doesn't contradict your claim here....
3. Never said that animals cannot display morals, I am saying that when animals partake in the things we would deem evil we do not consider them evil. That is my point and one which you've totally failed to grasp.
4. Being indifferent is what I am getting at... Again you have failed to grasp the point.. Here I'll make it easy for you. Indifferent = no good and no evil, no good and no evil = no morality
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference . . . DNA neither caresnor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995), 133.
5. Strawman fallacy, I never stated that.
6. Did I ever claim that I was a genius? Red Herring logical fallacy
7. Pot calling the kettle black, since you haven't addressed my counter point, except to whine and complain about something I never said (point 6). Care to demonstrate how our knowledge of hand grenades killing people would constitute as morality from nature?
8. Did you not say this?
"On the other hand you have authoritarian morality, the notion that something is good or bad not because of it's intrinsic nature or potential consequences, but because god (or whatever authority figure) says so. That might makes right. In which case god could say raping children is good and it would be good (even though it still causes horror and incredible pain to the child)."
The fact that God doesn't say this rebutts your point on its own accord. Therefore no "lying" here.
9. I don't deal with hypotheticals, I prefer to stick to reality. Feel free to meet up with your evo mates in imagination-land though, I won't hold anything against you.
10. Never said that, only pointing out that you are new, and thus cannot hope to know all the people on this forum... So shouldn't be making a blanket statement about the people on this forum.
11. Sigh... Here come debate the dictonary...
/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
/səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
12. And we come full circle, back to the "natural law" belief which in your point 1 you stated you never claimed... Oops. Nature holds no morals, Dawkins figured it out and I have quoted him, other evolutionists have figured it out too. Nature is indifferent, it has no good no evil no right no wrong, it is merely neutral.