[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What atheists don’t fear is what happens AFTER death.[/quote]
I think I know what you mean. It’s sort of like a 2 year old having no fear of running out in front of a car traveling at 60 miles an hour.
[/quote]
Well, it’s nothing like that, but I expect nothing less from you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.[/quote]
Um…what? Oh, that is right you’re my spiritual director. How did I forget?
Because I am Catholic, that some how makes me void of reasoning faculties? I don’t question anything? Interesting, since I’m one of the most critical (correction: critical in a correct matter, not using straw man arguments) people of the Catholic Church on this board.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.[/quote]
Um…what? Oh, that is right you’re my spiritual director. How did I forget?
Because I am Catholic, that some how makes me void of reasoning faculties? I don’t question anything? Interesting, since I’m one of the most critical (correction: critical in a correct matter, not using straw man arguments) people of the Catholic Church on this board. [/quote]
Not because you’re Catholic, because you’re religious. Stop making everything about how people hate Catholics more than everyone else. Just because Hitler was Roman Catholic, doesn’t mean everyone automatically considers Catholicism the ultimate evil.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
yeah… that thread was painful.
I decided to quote here something that you wrote, Cortes. It appears to me to be the only point at which you addressed evolution and morals;
What exactly is it that you find lacking in the theory of evolution… or what is it that you refer to that it can not explain?
This is as far as I ever saw you go in the way of addressing morality in the context of evolution, such as I’ve presented it. Do you care to take a stab at it now, or will you continue to dismiss it as an affront to some status that you have gained in these threads?[/quote]
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.
Morals are not behaviors. They inform behaviors. If the concept happens to be genetically derived neither is this a refutation against an overarching absolute Moral Law (see the Genetic Fallacy). And again, as I have already said about a thousand times, certain acts (behaviors) can never be right, regardless of circumstances.
If you still have a problem with this, then you are going to have to do a better job of explaining your beef than, “Well, you don’t know what moral relativity is,” and “you never even answered the question that I never even asked, so there!”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
yeah… that thread was painful.
I decided to quote here something that you wrote, Cortes. It appears to me to be the only point at which you addressed evolution and morals;
What exactly is it that you find lacking in the theory of evolution… or what is it that you refer to that it can not explain?
This is as far as I ever saw you go in the way of addressing morality in the context of evolution, such as I’ve presented it. Do you care to take a stab at it now, or will you continue to dismiss it as an affront to some status that you have gained in these threads?[/quote]
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.
Morals are not behaviors. They inform behaviors. If the concept happens to be genetically derived neither is this a refutation against an overarching absolute Moral Law (see the Genetic Fallacy). And again, as I have already said about a thousand times, certain acts (behaviors) can never be right, regardless of circumstances.
If you still have a problem with this, then you are going to have to do a better job of explaining your beef than, “Well, you don’t know what moral relativity is,” and “you never even answered the question that I never even asked, so there!”
[/quote]
Ok - I partially agree with you - But another perspective might change your view, I challenge you to actually understand and research the model before replying.
Firstly, “morals inform behaviours”, I agree. BUT how do we come to moral conclusions? By your reasoning they’re…“just there”… But really its the brain? right? … Let me draw your attention to our major point of evolution and that of classical conditioning. Generally this is defined as a strong stimulus and a weak stimulus being fired together to produce a response. And eventually the weak stimulus is equally as effective at evoking the “strong” response. If you wish to look it up, in other contexts pavlov’s dog, Hebbs rule “cells that fire together wire together” etc etc.
Over time we learn and this becomes “normal” depending on the “stimulus-response” model.
So in context for us, there are situations that are put in front of us (ie. right and wrong, weak and strong) which condition us to think a certain way. So, through evolution we have been conditioned over time to react to certain situations in certain ways, and conditioned in such a way that it advantages us and our society.
IE - I contend morals are physical and a DIRECT response to evolution. (Not only because of this ONE example)
Also alleviating your argument of free will - We might KNOW what is right or wrong but which behaviour outcome we choose to act upon is free will…pretty simple stuff.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.[/quote]
Um…what? Oh, that is right you’re my spiritual director. How did I forget?
Because I am Catholic, that some how makes me void of reasoning faculties? I don’t question anything? Interesting, since I’m one of the most critical (correction: critical in a correct matter, not using straw man arguments) people of the Catholic Church on this board. [/quote]
Not because you’re Catholic, because you’re religious. Stop making everything about how people hate Catholics more than everyone else. Just because Hitler was Roman Catholic, doesn’t mean everyone automatically considers Catholicism the ultimate evil.[/quote]
Red herring about Hitler (it is a common known fact that Hitler was in good standing with the Catholic Church only before he started killing Jewish people, and then moving on to other groups like…Catholics), so what you’re saying is because I’m religious…I do not question? Isn’t that some kind of logical fallacy as well?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.[/quote]
Okay, THIS is where we disagree. I contend that morals are not metaphysical concepts. I contend that describing them as such is a half-assed attempt at understanding their origins.
I also contend that evolution is the source of our morals and does not “destroy” them. Consider the ability to reason change in content… a psychologist, Piaget, is famous for conducting a series of studies in which infants were presented with different objects and pictures to look at. In some experiments they were conditioned by repeatedly being presented with the same picture. When presented with that picture (say 3 dots instead of 2) the infants showed increased interest in the picture. The inference drawn form these studies (there were many, and his publishings of the work do them more justice than I can here) is that these nearly new-born children have an innate cognitive facility to discern change in objects. Similarly, I contend that the drive to behave in certain moral fashions is innate to us, an evolutionary tool that has served our species well and thus persisted.
Another examples is the drive to procreate… when it’s time to knock boots, it’s not uncommon for a man to become nearly a complete subject of his hormones… it’s almost involuntary… almost, if not for our uniquely developed cognitive faculties.
I think I just addressed free will for you as well.
I agree with the first part of this paragraph. Morals do inform behaviors. However, it is my opinion that there is no overarching moral law. This is a construct of philosophy, religion, etc… that seeks to define a biological imperative. This does not mean that establishing moral codes and laws in society does not serve us well. Nor does it mean that seeking to be moral in your actions and motivations is somehow futile. It’s plainly obvious that an individual who seeks to live a moral existence benefits from this, as does society as a whole benefit from higher percentages of morally-bound individuals.
[quote] If you still have a problem with this, then you are going to have to do a better job of explaining your beef than, “Well, you don’t know what moral relativity is,” and “you never even answered the question that I never even asked, so there!”
[/quote]
My reason for asking you to define moral relativism is because you characterized me as a moral relativist, and I don’t think that you know what one is. I saw earlier in this thread and the other that you leveled this characterization at those who disagreed with you. Again, I suspect it is a concept you are not fully versed on, and based on your obvious interest in the topic, you might want to be.
An excellent book that touches on this topic and provides a basic vocabulary of ethics is How Good People Make Tough Decisions by Rushworth Kidder. I think you will like it, because the author tends to be an absolutist and generally ignores the position that morals are evolutionarily derived… though, he does touch on Piaget’s work here and there, oddly enough.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
Read much?
Seriously… how can you possibly make this claim?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
www.newmediaministries.orgBible/Biblographic_S.html
[/quote]
this link does not work[/quote]
Then you have something in common.
It looks like… (gasp) you’ll have to type it in yourself. Sorry man I hate to put you through this arduous task.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]
Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]
The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]
No no no no no. On what authority do you oppose that fact that I FEEL something is moral that you do not? What makes you the moral authority?[/quote]
Suppose I FEEL that Megan Fox has a strong attraction to me. And therein lies the problem. You can FEEL whatever you want about the state of reality, but to tell other people you have to provide something testable, otherwise you are sharing a feeling and not knowledge.[/quote]
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
It has been claimed on this thread the bible is only symbolic - so it’s be accurately symbolic? to be honest the bible sounds more like a story book…
[/quote]
Like I care what was claimed on this thread LOL…thanks man that was good.
Anyway, I trust in the word of God written in the Bible. I have not seen anything yet to refute it. And it seems every time there is an archeological dig (in that part of the world) they turn up more evidence to back up the facts in the Bible.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What atheists don’t fear is what happens AFTER death.[/quote]
I think I know what you mean. It’s sort of like a 2 year old having no fear of running out in front of a car traveling at 60 miles an hour.
[/quote]
Well, it’s nothing like that, but I expect nothing less from you.[/quote]
I know you atheists like to be dismissive of things, but don’t be so quick on this one. Think about it man. A child lives in his own little world and is unaware of the danger that he can run into. Also many times he won’t listen to mommy and daddy who know better. Thus putting himself in harms way thinking that nothing could possibly happen to him.
Yeah there are similarities.
Nice cartoon up top by the way - Nice to see you’re back to doing what you do best.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.[/quote]
stop wasting time, all you have to do is hop on the many atheists web sites and pull down some of those horse crap contradictions (that I’ve refuted many times on this very site) and we can commence.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
100%, haven’t seen one thing in the Bible refuted for 11 years (how long I’ve listened to objections and gave objections).[/quote]
You don’t look for objections, you look for something to fit with your worldview.[/quote]
Um…what? Oh, that is right you’re my spiritual director. How did I forget?
Because I am Catholic, that some how makes me void of reasoning faculties? I don’t question anything? Interesting, since I’m one of the most critical (correction: critical in a correct matter, not using straw man arguments) people of the Catholic Church on this board. [/quote]
Not because you’re Catholic, because you’re religious. Stop making everything about how people hate Catholics more than everyone else. Just because Hitler was Roman Catholic, doesn’t mean everyone automatically considers Catholicism the ultimate evil.[/quote]
Yeah Brother Chris Mak is an equal opportunity hater. Catholics are not at the head of the line he hates all Christians equally.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
www.newmediaministries.orgBible/Biblographic_S.html
[/quote]
this link does not work[/quote]
Then you have something in common.
It looks like… (gasp) you’ll have to type it in yourself. Sorry man I hate to put you through this arduous task.
[/quote]
Nice try smartass.
There is not even a website; newmediaministries.org
swoleupinya
maybe you’re not a moral relativist, but you are surely a reductionnist.
you can say that morality emerged from evolution, and has its root in Nature without rejecting the “construct of philosophy and religion” and without reducing morality to biological drives, unvoluntary processes, and sociological norms.
you just need to acknowledge that philosophy and religion themselves emerged from evolution, and that culture IS human nature.
and with culture came the need to ask “what ought i do ?”.
which is NOT a scientific question. but a metaphysical one.
morality is not (just) your hormones
it’s not (just) your education
it’s not (just) your instinct
it’s the answer(s) you give to this question.
moral relativism states that it’s impossible to give an universal and true answer to this question.
absolutism affirm the contrary
edit :
no wonder that Piaget is quoted by absolutists authors.
he was a structuralist thinker, and as such he studied the universal structures of the human mind. ie : human nature in its modern meaning.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What atheists don’t fear is what happens AFTER death.[/quote]
I think I know what you mean. It’s sort of like a 2 year old having no fear of running out in front of a car traveling at 60 miles an hour.
[/quote]
Well, it’s nothing like that, but I expect nothing less from you.[/quote]
I know you atheists like to be dismissive of things, but don’t be so quick on this one. Think about it man. A child lives in his own little world and is unaware of the danger that he can run into. Also many times he won’t listen to mommy and daddy who know better. Thus putting himself in harms way thinking that nothing could possibly happen to him.
Yeah there are similarities.
Nice cartoon up top by the way - Nice to see you’re back to doing what you do best.
[/quote]
The only way your analogy works is if we all agree that your worldview is accurate. We don’t… so, this analogy is just combative tripe.
[quote]kamui wrote:
swoleupinya
maybe you’re not a moral relativist, but you are surely a reductionnist. [/quote]
I’m not certain how you mean to apply the label “reductionist.” If you could, please clarify.
I don’t reject the constructs of philosophy and religion… they are exactly that, constructs - imagined things.
I don’t “reduce” morality in any sense. I do attempt to understand its origin, and it is my opinion that as a product of evolution it is vastly more complex and fascinating than any metaphysical explanation.
Sociological norms are another valuable tool of evolution. They can certainly be misdirected, but on the whole they have served us well.
As for “unvoluntary” (I think the word you are looking for is involuntary) processes, it is possible I have not elaborated enough on cognition. Humans have decidedly demonstrated the ability to consciously overcome biological imperatives… IE dieting. The same ability applies to morality. This is why I am not an absolutist. In some situations, immoral acts must be committed for a greater moral good. So… no, morality is not 100% involuntary.
I think that I have very plainly made this case. In the case that I haven’t, allow me to state it clearly; all human behavior is in some sense the result of evolution… on the macro level via genotype and at the micro level via phenotype.
[quote] and with culture came the need to ask “what ought i do ?”.
which is NOT a scientific question. but a metaphysical one. [/quote]
I think you are confusing need with want.
In my opinion, metaphysics is bullshit. There is, by definition, no such thing.
[quote] morality is not (just) your hormones
it’s not (just) your education
it’s not (just) your instinct [/quote]
If you have read these reductions into my comments, I apologize. It was not my intent. I am speaking here about origins, not regulation and development.
You can only reduce morality to this question if you first agree that morality is an external absolute. I don’t.
[quote] moral relativism states that it’s impossible to give an universal and true answer to this question.
absolutism affirm the contrary
[/quote]
No. Moral relativism states that the answer to the question, “what ought I do,” is relative to the dilemma. This is subtly different than what you propose to define relativism, but it is different nonetheless. For instance, if the dilemma is whether or not to take one life to save hundreds, the “right” answer does not change with to whom the question is posed. If, instead the dilemma is to take one life to save one other life, then the “right” answer MAY change. (there are a lot of variables here beyond my simple example)
Does this make sense?
Can someone explain the whole “The Bible is not facturally correct but its the truth” really doesn’t make sense to me.
If you gave me a math book that had the followings sums:
1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=6
After that final sum I could’nt beleive anything else I read because I can prove its wrong. Surely the same can be said for the bible?
