Animal Morality

[aleph naught]

If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

You going to answer the question?

Nope.

[Rostos]

If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

You going to answer the question?

Nope.

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

[aleph naught]

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

[Rostos]

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

[aleph naught]

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

Notice, you laughing hyena, that none of this entails that humans are not morally valuable.

But some humans are certainly special. Some have special needs, for example. And some people think that naturalism is incompatible with humans being morally valuable. Those people are special too.

[Rostos]

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

Notice, you laughing hyena, that none of this entails that humans are not morally valuable.

But some humans are certainly special. Some have special needs, for example. And some people think that naturalism is incompatible with humans being morally valuable. Those people are special too.

LOL, no they arent...its just speciesim to think humans are special. Its an illusion that they actually are.

Not many people can look at there atheism square in the face and you seem to be one of them.

[jayceeii]

What we seem to be missing here, is humans agreeing a poor man needs not only one meal a day and a cot on the coldest nights, but a good home, an education and job opportunities. You cite examples of morality on the animal plane, but I trip you up if you say there are examples of morality on the human plane. Men don’t care for their fellow men. Oh yes, for brief instances there seems to be care, but these tend to be cases of “heroism,” where there’s an immediate kickback in renown. After that chance fades so does the care. An excellent example is the hard legal battle by those whose lungs were injured after the fall of the twin towers. The whole world was prepared to drop them.