* I don’t think morality is subjective. If it were, I don’t think we’d bother having discussions about moral issues.
I believe humans are, objectively, more valuable than other species.*

Its because its subjective that we do have these discussions!

You are free to believe what you want, but have no substantiated
evidence for your claim of objective morality. If your alleged
Almighty was there, he would be free to post the rules on the
surface of the moon for all to see, he's never bothered.

The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt
or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones. The same
applies if you'd grown up a Hindu, etc, etc.

Phillip Tang,

Each individual instances of evolution does not have to repeatable or observable to give credence to evolutionary theory. What you are suggesting is akin to saying the theory of gravity, whilst it works in Perth on Feb 6, 2008, possibly did not work in Uluru 300 million years ago because there was none there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.

Evolution is in the same category; we have observed and proven examples of speciation from common ancestors (surely you must acknowledge that speciation has been observed?!?) which indicate that it is true in general until a more consistent, more testable theory is offered.

I may also take the opportunity to mention that you don't seem to know what 'sophistry' is. Please do look it up.

It is interesting that you raise the suggestion that evolution wouldn't stand up in a court of law. I would suggest that you have a long and careful read of a recent case where the creationist doctrine of "intelligent design" was debated against evolution in courts of law. A summary is available, along with a collection of all the documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

yabby wrote 'The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones.'...

quite wrong actually...unless one blindly follows religious commands and obeys religious powers of the time without question(though there is a 'comfort and security' to the individual albeit for short period until pressures start developing)...in which case its no different to an authoritarian regime existing for its own power and benefit...or the person chooses to not use their powers of logic and reasoning to religious matters to advance their spiritual development or balanced action in daily action...which would lead to next question is...why?...what is the benefit for the individual among that group to become literally a member of an 'religious_army'...keeping in mind that deceit starts playing increasingly stronger factor the further the action of the 'body' moves away from balanced action eg nazi government, stalin government and now it seems 'bush group' and american government...for 'morality' mainly exists at the individual level in that specific situation...irrespective of their religion or culture...and this is different to application of local 'law' which can be dramatically different eg public stoning and judicial private hanging or prolonged suffering in jail...

the sentence might have more credibility if word 'culture' was used instead of 'morality'...

for 'god_person' relationship is a very personal one...and I think one aspect of current discussion is if this advances moral action in daily life...mass worship in a preset routine does not advance this as much as it does the power and influence of the religious body itself...eg anglican and catholic church income...I dont think any religious body on earth so far has acted to effectively assist an individual developing their personal relationship with 'god' or their spiritual development...without some benefit for themselves from 'group-power'...

Sam

No Sam. That's claptrap.

"The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones."

Is 100 per cent accurate - perhaps not on the precise stats, but I think Yabby's overall point there is totally unassailable. You simply cannot deny, that the vast majority of people born into a rigid belief system, adopt that system themselves, with the morals associated with it.

You cannot argue against that, unless you're denying the reality of these places, and the very facts and statistics all around it. I honestly don't know how you can try to make this foolish argument given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You say: "unless one blindly follows religious commands and obeys religious powers of the time without question."

Indeed. But when you're raised in a doctrine, you become indoctrinated - hence the word. It's all well and good to sit from your comfortable western chair and speak of the importance of critical insight, but the fact of the matter is, if you were raised in an environment where questioning doesn't take place, the vast majority of people won't question.

I'm not saying all, and neither did yabby. The vast majority however, is accurate.

This is a key point why agnostics and secularists reject religion - look around the world for just a moment, and see all the people embracing the faith they're brought up with, compared to the very low number of people who shift from one faith to another.
When you look at it with a little perspective, all these ritualistic belief sets all vying with one another over their version of god look pretty petty in the grand scheme of things.

trtl I think your unwritten base presumption is if 'fear of authority'exists with the 'rigid belief system' exists...then yes...yabby's statement and ur support of that may have value...hence referral to the authoritarian system and which case that is the bigger problem to the common decent person under that...dont think morality will play an important role in daily life unless it goes underground...and eventually did eventually toppling some of those regimes mentioned towards a more balanced ones now...

however in a free democratic society(if such truly exists)...then 'with a different set of moral rules' is wrong for reasons given irrespective of the culture, religion or beliefs the person was raised in...just to make sure we are on the same page...legal definition of moral action http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Law

Sam
by the way u still call it claptrap http://www.answers.com/topic/claptrap for it raises an issue of 'closed mind approach' on your part

Philip Tang,

To add to what Lev has said:

<<This assertion can’t be proven>>

By using the word “assertion”, you're implying that what Dawkins says, is an unsupported claim. This is wrong, as there is so much data that backs the theory of evolution, that it would take you years to learn it all. There is nothing that supports creationism.

Every claim you could make that supposedly supports 'creation', can be debunked in the blink of an eye. The only “evidence” that Creationists have, is their personal interpretation of 'design' in everything they see. But this is flawed for many reasons.

For starters, complexity doesn't imply design. Simplicity is one of the main objectives in design. There are simple things that are designed, and complex things that form naturally.

<<He is appealing to eye-witness accounts...>>

Firstly, what's wrong with that?

Secondly, linking to deceitful videos doesn't give you much credibility, Philip.

Do you even realise that the video you linked to is a hoax video, that has been cleverly edited to make it look like Dawkins was avoiding a question? It's astonishing that such an obviously faked video (not to mention the other versions of that video), is so easily believed by those who are clutching at straws.

The person who posted that video, monitors comments and rejects those that argue against it. Not only that, but evangelical groups have been flagging YouTube videos - that use their creation videos to debunk Creationism - as breaching copyright. Yet these Creation videos have no copyright at all:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978

It never ceases to amaze me how slippery and deceitful Creationists can be. If they are so right, then why do they need to employ these sorts of tactics?

Apparently the 9th commandment doesn't apply to them: “Thou shalt not bare false witness against they neighbour”

Continued...