SkepticalOne

Your attempt to hide behind humor implies you are one of those individuals who are fearful.

I'm fearful we as an electorate too often fear minimally dangerous things exaggerated and discount serious threats completely.

p.s. if you don't hit the reply button, I don't get a notification!

...does anyone think morality exists independent of conscious beings?

One might generally refer to that as objective morality.

Quite.  But if a 'concept of god' can exist without god existing surely the 'concept of morality' can exist without morality existing!

I should ask if you know/accept the standard arguments about the unreality of colour and if you see the relevance of that question!

I am not familiar with it.

I'm willing to throw it open for people to say if I am being inconsistent and/or irrational.

I dont think your being inconsistent, but I admit, I don't understand your view completely.

Storing energy isn't the issue, its the going from 2 weeks of intense heat to 2 weeks of intense cold and dark. The facilities would have to take all that into consideration regarding the building materials being used that could handle these changes."

I think they can.  A similar issue would be present for Mars.  Martian nights are cold.

It has nothing to do with God being driven out of society. 

For there to be a logical contradiction, these views would need to exist in the same person at the same time. It makes no difference if the subject is ice cream or moral views.

Not necessarily so. For there to be a logical contradiction the moral view on the same subjectwould have to contradict. Liking ice-cream and liking to torture innocent human beings for fun are different categories. 

I think people have a right to control their own bodies to an extent,

There are no part-time rights.

What is a dishonest question?

This is an honest question. You are looking for my answer and not trying to build your own into the question. 

If something is bad then it must be bad. It can't be bad and not bad depending on who believes it (at the same time and in regards to the same thing). That is ILLOGICAL. 

Not that I agree with Keith's views, but there is no logical contradiction with something being viewed as good and bad by different people at the same time. 

If I can't persuade you with logic and reason then either my system of thought is not reasonable and logical, I can't express it as such, or you are not a reasonable and logical person. 

I agree one of those options is likely.

After our abortion debate would you like to debate the subject of prophecy again?

I have no interest in playing devils advocate again. 

If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging source then you can't say your opinion is objective or even good. All you can say is you like it. 

First, it is not my opinion alone and it does not come from me alone. 

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this [...]

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 

Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 

Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive

affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.

You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 

I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality.

It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it.

In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?

Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death.

Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life. 

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.

Without justice, what is good about it?

It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Back as far as Plato and Aristotle, both recognized the objective best was how the good was measured. The measure of morality if it is relative is not fixed. How you get to objective morality from a subjective mindset with no outside directive is beyond me. 

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

Once we agree? The problem is agreeing.

How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? 

For one thing, there is no ultimate justice.

Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? 

[...]if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. 

There may be no objective basis for morality - so what! Moral actions can be objectively known once we agree human life (and life is general) is special and worth preserving. Anyone who does not agree to this has no place in a legitimate discussion on morality.

What's more, I think our evolutionary heritage has built into us our appreciation of life. If so, morality has an objective basis.

I think you get too caught up on your subjective desire for an absolute, objective being to realize one is not needed for morality and that there is possibly a much more plausible objective basis if you must have such a foundation.

Really cringeworthy.

If you are not a hard working, law abiding citizen, you should vote for a Democrat.

I guess I f*cked up then - I voted straight Dem!  ;-)

What do you have from the time period that says otherwise? 

I have no good reason to doubt that the apostles were martyred, and every good reason to believe they were.

I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.

It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.

It's not impossible to prove a negative? Please demonstrate by proving there is no Russell's flying teapot.

I have to say, I agree with the OP and your defense of it. Although, your opponent is correct that *sometimes* a negative can be proven. For instance, 'there are no married bachelors'. The terms married and bachelor conflict and cannot exist in a single entity at the same time, thus a married bachelor is a logical impossibility and does not exist.

I think you should qualify your statement to avoid this irrelevancy.

Well, my faith is not in my understanding, but God, which is certainly above and beyond my understanding.

It always amazes me when people pretend to not know what truth or reality means. If you don't believe in truth and reality, there is no amount of explaining on my part that will make things clear to you.

You have adopted the identity of the skeptic. I tell you that it takes just as much thought to believe something on hearing as it does to reject something on hearing.

I am not making a tautology. You are being obtuse

It Is That It Is

This is still a tautology, and no new information has been provided by the repetition. I remain in the dark about what this is meant to say.

To distinguish that which is real in a contingent sense from that which is eternally real.

I said whatever The Ultimate Reality is that is The Ultimate Reality.

If there is one reality, The Ultimate Reality would be it. If there are many realities, they exist vecause of The Ultimate Reality, and they have no existence apart from it.

It is really hard to teach people who already think they know.