Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

Just wanted to let you know that its probably a waste of time to argue about morality with a person who is an antisemite Monday through Saturday and then on Sunday begs God for forgiveness for being such an asshole during the week and then to show God how sorry he is for his sins, celebrates the torture and death of a Jew.


Might as well debate trump, who always tells it like it is, about the value of honesty.

Who's that then? The 'person', not Trump.

Who was it that brought up amoral vs immoral, democrats are evil, etc.?

A wild and crazy guy who just loves to golf and gets his spiritual life from doing exactly what God promises results in death.

The dead know nothing, remember? Would you jump into a pit of snakes to look for a snack?

Oh you mean the vague ambiguous one?

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about what I believe or write. If anything the complaint against me is that I am too black or white. People like to believe there are shades of grey but it is situations which are graduated, not moral laws.

Yes, but you won't meet halfway.

But I can be convinced and I am open to being convinced. But you are correct, I won’t compromise my beliefs for the sake of compromise. And I am more than happy to agree to disagree. I may challenge the beliefs of others but I try very hard not to criticize the person or their beliefs just because they don’t believe as I do.

 

[sealybobo]

Mindful the moral wants to round up us democrats and put us in camps

I actually prefer liberals over libertarians. Libertarians are amoral. At least Democrats believe they are moral even though they are diametrically opposed to what is good and just.

Had to inform myself on that one.

'amoral/ immoral. Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache. If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better.'

Vocabulary.com

Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right. And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Morality is a human construct (AS FAR AS YOU KNOW). Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually (USUALLY?) operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. (ANIMALS CAN'T OVERIDE INSTINCT AND IMPULSE? ARE YOU SURE OR JUST PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS?) It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Like you this guy is only offering up opinions can animals override instinct?

Impulse control can be taught too Impulse control – the 6 keys to teaching dogs calm and polite behavior - Smart Animal Training Systems...

 

[sealybobo]

I actually prefer liberals over libertarians. Libertarians are amoral. At least Democrats believe they are moral even though they are diametrically opposed to what is good and just.

Had to inform myself on that one.

'amoral/ immoral. Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache. If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better.'

Vocabulary.com

Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right. And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

 

[Mindful]

Had to inform myself on that one.

'amoral/ immoral. Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache. If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better.'

Vocabulary.com

Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right. And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

 

[Mindful]

I'm quite capable of making up my own mind about Ding, thanks all the same.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right. And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

 

[BreezeWood]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

 

[ding]

Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right. And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Animals absolutely experience emotions. And there are more than enough examples in the wild where they risk their lives for others.

 

[sealybobo]

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.

There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.

 

[danielpalos]

...i can be as moral as any deist. Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.

Like anyone wants a sweaty beaner putting his hands on them. Better luck next time.

i have a happy camper policy; call me on my True Witness bearing!

 

[danielpalos]

...i can be as moral as any deist. Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.

Your level of thirst on a political messageboard anything anyone in real life should be worried about, bro?

i love capitalism for the market based metrics.

 

[ding]

Are cats amoral? I love than for it.

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

 

[sealybobo]

Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

 

[ding]

Okay. I can go with that.

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying. Hint. He's making half of what he said up. All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

 

[ding]

Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

How will you know if he cares?

 

[sealybobo]

Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment. LOL.

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

How will you know if he cares?

I would see them playing with each other.

They came over tonight. The dogs hardly played. But I am going to drop him off at her place tomorrow morning. They’ve been cooped up un -9 degree weather.

It’ll be 45 saturday and sunday

 

[ding]

Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

How will you know if he cares?

I would see them playing with each other.

They came over tonight. The dogs hardly played. But I am going to drop him off at her place tomorrow morning. They’ve been cooped up un -9 degree weather.

It’ll be 45 saturday and sunday

Maybe you aren’t making the proper comparison. It wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[G.T.]

They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay.

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck.

If that’s not moral what is?

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

How will you know if he cares?

I would see them playing with each other.

They came over tonight. The dogs hardly played. But I am going to drop him off at her place tomorrow morning. They’ve been cooped up un -9 degree weather.

It’ll be 45 saturday and sunday

Maybe you aren’t making the proper comparison. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Now you want to snivel at him to try to debate his Dog's emotions?

Sick!

 

[ding]

I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.

I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.

How will you know if he cares?

I would see them playing with each other.

They came over tonight. The dogs hardly played. But I am going to drop him off at her place tomorrow morning. They’ve been cooped up un -9 degree weather.

It’ll be 45 saturday and sunday

Maybe you aren’t making the proper comparison. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Now you want to snivel at him to try to debate his Dog's emotions?

Sick!

Are you still carrying that girl?

I left her at the stream.