I do not concede that this is the case. I’d very much like to see data to back up this assertion. As it stands, it is indeed, merely an assertion.
However, if I granted your assertion that morals are more culture than biology, so what? Are you asserting that religion is the most appropriate and/or effective arbiter of that which humanity should consider moral? If so, which religion? Yours? Buddhism? Islam? Scientology?
It’s a false dichotomy anyway, as both cultural and moral ideas all stem from our biology, they cannot do otherwise. it’s not a choice between cultural dogma and biology, the biology precedes and enables all human ideas, as they come from our evolved brains.
FYI, secularism has informed cultural ideas, and it has advantages, in that it needn’t appeal to unevidenced superstition, and places primary importance on human well being, and not adherence to archaic superstitious codes, whose morals derive mainly from patriarchal Bedouin cultures.
Yes, as far as I know, only some animist beliefs place environmental preservation as a fundamental value. Major religions tend to ignore this issue, likely because, historically, it hasn’t been as pressing a problem as it is today. However, it’s also important to note that not all animist or indigenous belief systems necessarily emphasize environmental preservation either.
No, my point is that our morality is often based on dogmas that can’t always be logically demonstrated. This is why I say that we might need some dogmas as a foundational stone for a morality that considers planet preservation a fundamental value, on par with human rights. I’m not interested in pointing out a specific religion, but what I’m asking is whether dogmas could be necessary to introduce new fundamental values in society.
So your answer to your own thread question “Do we need a religion to save the planet?” is no then, thread over.
You think “planet preservation” will be more successful, if we approach it with morality that isn’t rational? That’s just absurd. I am also starting to wonder if dogma means what you think it means.
Yes, like any other moral value.
I’m calling this one, troll.
Let me add something … I believe that reason and logic should be accepted, except when they lead to immoral actions.
That’s not what you said, and you clearly don’t accept this at all, as your posts have been relentlessly irrational, and you ignore it when it’s pointed out, added to which you have yet to offer any evidence or explanation as to why you believe being irrational ever produces better moral choices? As I said initially, the claim is demonstrably absurd.
Your arguments are all over the place, and you have now stated unequivocally, that your answer to the question posited in your own thread title, is no. Not sure what’s left to debate.
Oh yes, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along—that when reason and logic don’t lead us to moral actions, we need dogmas. I have consistently repeated this idea throughout this specific debate.
That’s a lie, I asked if you thought “planet preservation” will be more successful, if we approach it with morality that isn’t rational for clarification, it’s below:
As anyone you can see what you said was that irrationality leads to better morals. That does at east explain why your posts are relentlessly irrational, though you’ve provided no credible or objective evidence to support this claim, anymore than any others you’ve made, quelle surprise.
What it doesn;t explain is your lie that logic should be accepted, when you have refused to even acknowledge the logical fallacies you’ve used, and repeated them.
Let me provide a complete answer. What I’m saying is that our fundamental morals are not always based on rationality, and the preservation of the planet is no exception. Consider, for example, the concern for future generations. Rationality and logic suggest that caring about something you will never experience is irrational. Yet, we all share this value, which makes it irrational and dogmatic, but it is clearly positive and beneficial.
I apply the same logic to planet preservation, which is simply a variation of “caring for future generations”—something beneficial but not necessarily rational. However, if you believe there is a rational argument to justify caring about a future you will never experience, please share it.
I note @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU never even tried to answer either question, sticking doggedly to repeating the same irrational arguments over and over.
Or that question…
This one gets a second mention as quite possibly one of the stupidest claims I have ever seen, everything I have experienced was once in a future I could only imagine, dear oh dear…
That’s because morality is subjective, and relative, it cannot be otherwise.
I never got a response to that one either, quelle surprise. I can only suggest people go back and read some of idiotic plain bat shit crazy nonsense he’s posted.
It’s right there in your response, the word yes is the one that should be emboldened.
No, you plainly said we achieve better morality by being irrational, when I asked you plainly you said yes, don’t lie and move the goalposts. You still haven’t defined what you think morality means either, or explained how being irrational ever produces better morals? Are you basing your rationale on Star Trek characters perhaps, as that’s the kind of sci-fi rhetoric it looks like, it certainly doesn’t suggest you understand logic or what informal logic and common logical fallacies are designed to do.
Nonsense, which principle of logic are you asserting has been violated? If you dodge this question again, it only reinforces what I keep saying, that you are invoking the word logic purely as rhetoric.
Wrong again, I find the notion everyone cares about the future of the planet highly dubious, how many people were in your polling test group, please link the research. just kidding, I know it was more of the sweeping unevidenced rhetoric you love, and sadly that you think people will find compelling.
There is only one logic, and you are not applying it.
Yet you have failed to explain a single principle of logic that caring about the future of the planet violates, despite being asked literally half a dozen times at least, what can we infer from this reticence I wonder?
Straw man fallacy, so much for you using logic, I never made any such claim, and this clumsy attempt to reverse the burden of proof is also yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy of course…
fnarrr… 
I don’t think logic means what you think it means.
No, morality is not subjective because suffering is objective.
No suffering is not objective it is subjective, so that’s doubly nonsensical, it sounds like one of those wooly deepities religious philosophers love, it also doesn’t address the point, and ignores the context of my response, at this point I shan’t even feign surprise though.
Here is your original claim and my response for accurate context:
You ignored my questions again, again I’d feign surprise, but what would be the point.
Or that lie that you have posted repeatedly.
Your relentless irrationality, is surpassed only by your relentless dishonesty.
Panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is part of every physical entity, has been criticized for several reasons, including:
Falsifiability
Some say that panpsychism is not empirically testable.
Mental causation
Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that theories of consciousness should provide insight into the mind and brain to avoid the problem of mental causation.
Combination problem
This is perhaps the most significant criticism of panpsychism, and is the question of how the conscious minds of fundamental physical entities, like quarks and photons, combine to create human consciousness.
Explanations
Some say that panpsychism doesn’t offer any distinctive explanations or predictions. For example, physics and other physical sciences can explain the behavior of subatomic particles and the systems they form, so panpsychism doesn’t provide a unique explanation for consciousness.
“John Searle has alleged that panpsychism’s unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because “It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim”.[68] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.”
Please move this post to the appropriate thread. Thank you.
No, suffering is objective; it is not a matter of opinion but an event that occurs independently of your ideas and representations.
It was posted in error, but you are not a moderator here, so don’t try and tell others what to post or where to post it. I will post a copy of it in the other thread, only for honest readers obviously as you will never honestly address any objections to your superstitious claims.