If Human Beings Are Only Animals, Why Do We Care About Morality? (church, faith)

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Thoreau424

Morality, like laws, provide useful boundaries that help us all to get along. Without them, we'd be colliding and crossing into each other's boundaries more, to our disadvantage.

Animals don't have the same issues - and don't exist in a technological, monetary, legal, etc. world - so it's dumb to compare ourselves to them in this regard.

it works when you look at the fact that we are doing exactly what every other life form has done since day one ... Exploit their environment until something stops them or they kill themselves. The people thinking that animals have some secret squirt communal relationship with nature are as bonkers as the my god only types.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

it works when you look at the fact that we are doing exactly what every other life form has done since day one ... Exploit their environment until something stops them or they kill themselves. The people thinking that animals have some secret squirt communal relationship with nature are as bonkers as the my god only types.

I dont think a single person on this thread spoke about some secret communal relationship with nature so no idea why you bring that up. The topic 8s more or less, why should non believers have any morals if other animals don't either, and the animals morality as well as why atheists do maybe have morals have been brought up. Your comment on the other hand attacked tw9 groups of people neither of which are part of the topic.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Remember the story of the scorpion and the frog?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog


From an animal kingdom perspective, the scorpion is only doing what it does according to its own kind. Some animals are agressive, some are passive. Some animals even attack their own children, some are nurturing. Some animals will fight and kill each other. Some animals work together in groups.

Yet there is one thing I see in common here. No one looks at those actions and says, wow those creatures sure are immoral. Atheists want me to believe that we are nothing more than another creation, born out of time and chance. We are just another link in evolution, another branch on the giant tree of evolution. And yet if we did any of those things, we would be see as evil, grossly immoral and cruel. So the atheist tries to convince me that I am an animal because we share so many similarities with other species and they point to things like how dogs express real human emotions. We are animals because animals are like us.

I recently watched a documentary about illegal gambling in the US. It took a look into the dark world of dog fighting. In one scene, the trainers take what appears to be a gentle dog wagging his tail and place him in front of his mother. So messed up. They use some tactics to agitate the dog and suddenly they turn on each other. Killing machines going after their own family. So much for being human like. Man's best friend can be manipulated and programmed into something entirely different. Because animals don't view actions in terms of morality like we do. They don't weigh consequences even though we do have some fairly intelligent species out there.

You can't have it both ways. If we are animals then we should be acting like animals. Behaving according to our preprogrammed nature and instinct, not conflicted in areas of morality.

But if as evangelicals claim we are all born into and with sin, why do the majority of people do good, particularly those who have no affiliation with organized evangelical churches?

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by badlander

I dont think a single person on this thread spoke about some secret communal relationship with nature so no idea why you bring that up. The topic 8s more or less, why should non believers have any morals if other animals don't either, and the animals morality as well as why atheists do maybe have morals have been brought up. Your comment on the other hand attacked tw9 groups of people neither of which are part of the topic.

lmao, start with you don't know. we can move on from there. but lets try to address what was said, not if you approve or disapprove just because of who i addressed does, or does not, line up with your beliefs.

where am I wrong?

[Hulsker 1856]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

lmao, start with you don't know. we can move on from there. but lets try to address what was said, not if you approve or disapprove just because of who i addressed does, or does not, line up with your beliefs.

where am I wrong?

Do you even know what LMAO means? Using it in almost every post makes you look like a lunatic, maniacally laughing at rather ordinary comments.

More to the point, it's obvious that one of your flimsy rhetorical tactics is to express extreme derision at anyone who dares disagree with you in even a mild way, as you're unable to actually contest what is said so you go right for a character attack (albeit it an extremely feeble one). It's also a tell - like the liar who invariably prefaces a deceit with "Believe me...", when you have absolutely nothing to say (which is most of the time) you telegraph it loud and clear by going right for the 'LMAO'.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

lmao, start with you don't know. we can move on from there. but lets try to address what was said, not if you approve or disapprove just because of who i addressed does, or does not, line up with your beliefs.

where am I wrong?

Where were the comments made by either those who think animals live communal in peace with nature or my religion is right yours is wrong? My view us that you were addressing something other than the topic or previous posts in this thread. You would be just as right putting that post in a thread of ford versus chev in automotive forum or in a thread about the NBA. It's your personal hobby horse posted out of place. Nothing to do with my beliefs or lack of beliefs in either God, or morality especially or even animals but just a repeat of your hobby horse regardless if it has anything to do with this thread.

If my belief is a post should address either the topic or a previous post. That you think, OH here is a thread I will slip in my favourite theme into this one as well. Is there even one person on this forum who has the animal/environment viewpoint or just your strawman ?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Could you at least back up your posts with evidence rather than make empty assertions?

Try responding to what I write, and not what the voices in your head are saying.
Then go and use Google to see the evidence we have that you pretend we do not.
By the way, according to the bible (Proverbs 6:16-19), you god hates you twice.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I know your type just could never handle admitting that I'm right so you resort to thinly veiled statements suggesting that I am stupid.

Stupid? While I think you probably are, that was not what I was saying.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Thoreau424

Morality, like laws, provide useful boundaries that help us all to get along. Without them, we'd be colliding and crossing into each other's boundaries more, to our disadvantage.

Animals don't have the same issues - and don't exist in a technological, monetary, legal, etc. world - so it's dumb to compare ourselves to them in this regard.

Except we are comparing them where we and animals do have the same issues.

[gabfest]

Yes, propagation of the species.

[monumentus]

By your fruits we shall know you indeed. The real mask slips on the "true believer" in this one.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

You can't have it both ways. If we are animals then we should be acting like animals. Behaving according to our preprogrammed nature and instinct, not conflicted in areas of morality.

I think the failure in your thinking lies in the implication here that there is some template for "animal". And that there even is a way to "act like animals".

Our world is awash with numerous species all with numerous characteristics and attributes. None of them "act like animals". They all act differently. Each with attributes and parameters that are specific to their species and sometimes even unique to their species.

Morality - in the animal that we call "human" - is just one more example of that. An attribute that is almost entirely unique to our species though we find precursor correlates of it in other species.

The specific question in your OP therefore "If Human Beings Are Only Animals, Why Do We Care About Morality?" is not one that makes conceptual sense. The IF simply does not apply to the WHY as there is nothing within the "if" that in any way precludes the "why". It makes as much sense as me saying "If grass is green - why to most children prefer Vanilla Ice cream". Your entire question is fundamentally a non-sequitur.

As for the specific question as to why we as a species care about morality however - that is answerable in purely selfish terms. We are a social creature that lives and works together. "Morality" is little more than the rules each of us thinks best to live by to support that enterprise in the best way - and in the way most conducive to our own personal well being and that of our loved ones. Perhaps the real question is therefore why you think any more justification is required than that.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Seems kinda odd to me that out of the thousands and thousands of species, we are the only one who developed advanced complex brains.

Why is it odd though? The only reason it would or could be "odd" is if you had specific reason to expect the opposite to be likely or the default. However you have not offered any basis for assuming that more than one would develop this attribute. Perhaps it is odd that _any_ species did for example - let alone many more.

We can not assume defaults in order to manufacture a concept of "odd".

That said though - if new life were to arise today it would likely very quickly be consumed by existing life and bacteria. Similarly I suspect if or when new intelligences arise they would quickly be knocked back dominated and even destroyed by the existing one. If we found intelligent life elsewhere in the universe - even if we found it on 100,000 planets. I would be genuinely very surprised to find any planet with more than one species of sentient and intelligent life co-existing.

Though there was a fiction book - religiously themed - on that topic called "The Sparrow" which you might enjoy reading.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

How sad that you rather adopt a depraved viewpoint of humanity as being nothing more than sacks of meat.

How sad that you rather put words in people's mouths than consider their actual and real positions. I am happy with the concept that we are "sacks of meat" for example. But I would also never say we are "nothing more than sacks of meat".

We are conscious sentient creatures. And I think that is a hell of a lot more than "just sacks of meat". In fact I think the meat is irrelevant. If we instantiated an actual consciousness on silicon for example - I would treasure that life form every bit as much as I treasure any human being.

So it seems the obsession with meat is yours - rather than those you are manufacturing faux scorn for.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Morality has no place if that is your belief. You can spend your life helping the poor with no gain or pleasure or live it up like Hugh Hefner.

Even more of your assumptions and manufacturing peoples positions for them rather than asking them theirs. A couple of corrections to your nonsense therefore:

Firstly the two things here are not mutually exclusive. In fact some of our richest people "living it up" are also big on charity and helping their fellow man. Bill Gates for example seems quite obsessed with bringing clean water and hygiene to the poorest nations.

Secondly who says helping the poor comes with "no gain or pleasure". In fact you bely your own lack of morality here by suggesting the only motivation for such things _is_ gain or pleasure. While atheists do their work for the poor and needy purely as an end in it self - people such as yourself only appear upon reading nonsense like you wrote here to be doing so to buy credits in the afterlife and appease some god you have never once offered evidence even exists. It is you - not us - suggesting that acting morally towards the needy even _requires_ gain or pleasure in the first place - let alone your entirely false assumption it brings neither.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

One could argue that would be foolishness to not spend every moment alive in extremely selfish pursuits since there is no life after death, right?

Then by all means argue it since you claim you could. You certainly have not argued it here. Let us see through your demonstration just how well you think that position could be argued.

I think in fact the opposite is true. If there is an after life - an eternal one compared to this short and brief one - then the foolishness lies in spending any effort here _at all_ in alleviating suffering of others. Especially as the poor are to inherit yadda yadda blah blah and all that. Alleviating the suffering of the poor and needy is not just foolish in that light - but positively immoral as their afterlife due to their poverty and suffering is going to be even better than that of privileged white men such as yourself. I certainly do not require your pet Messiah ever suggesting "Priveged White Middle Class Males are going to benefit at all" for example. If you had any interest in the well being of others under the lights of Christian belief therefore - you should be out maximizing their poverty and suffering because in that way you improve their eternal well being.

No wonder people like Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu not only had no interest in reducing suffering - but positively appeared to worship it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Dolphins have larger brains than humans yet they can't even grasp simple concepts like numbers. Dolphins are still wild animals:

Not sure what you think your point here is - but just to offer some clarification the size of brains in terms of mere volume is _not_ a relevant measure here. More important in fact are the numbers and complexities of synaptic pathways for one - and the brainsize:bodysize ratio for another. A mere like to like size comparison is going to tell you _nothing_ at all of any real use or relevance.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Problem with that position is no two humans act exactly the same. You can't say that about any other animal species.

False. Dogs for example have a massive varying degree of personality. And quite often no two dogs will act the same even if put into identical scenarios.

I wonder does it concern you at all therefore that your world view - and maintenance and defence or your world view - appears to so strongly rely on your consistently and frequently simply making things up? I rather suspect the answer is no - which in itself is massively informative and telling.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Could you at least back up your posts with evidence rather than make empty assertions?

Said the pot to the kettle - give the string of falsehoods without argument or evidence you just manufactured from the ether.