[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why are stability and opportunities for longevity good?
[/quote]
Indeed. Stability as a primary driving force might be ok for some. However, for some others, power and personal (or a limited and defined group) satification is even more desireable, though it may entail a great deal of risk. Risk acceptance vs risk aversion.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[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]
The 2 year old doesn’t agree that there is any harm playing in the road either. But there is harm nonetheless - funny how that works. Someone is right and someone is wrong.
[quote]Rza UK wrote:
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?[/quote]
Then all you have to do is point out where the Bible is wrong - That should be easy for a sharp guy like you.
Do it.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.
[/quote]
LOL, very transparent way to try to get out of proving the Bible is wrong. If you’re not up to proving that the Bible is wrong why don’t you go ahead and explain electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery to me. Some think that those things are so outlandish that they can’t be real. At least the ignorant think that way.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Too many here are contending that absolute morality comes and can only come from god.
[/quote]
Ultimately, yes. But, I can respect your supernatural faith system, even if doesn’t include a divine intelligence.[/quote]
LOL, nice.
A good watch.
[quote]swoleupinya 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]
Read much?
Seriously… how can you possibly make this claim?
[/quote]
Yes, I read much, read 3-4 hours a day. Not sure what you’re getting at, or is this another ad hominem. You can refute a bunch of stuff in the Protestant Bibles, I would guess if you pick up a Protestant Bible there is about 2000 mistakes. However, never came across one in the Catholic Bible (with the right credentials).
[quote]Rza UK wrote:
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?[/quote]
Ever exaggerated a story to get a point across? Ever used a metaphor? Ever get pissed off when people are too retarded to realise that you exaggerated and you really didn’t “beat his face in.” Okay, that is the simplified version. For 1500 years we basically had one Bible, then a lot of Bibles started having errors in it. Then we started having Fundamentalist show up and really screwed things up. So, now it seems that 75% of the time, I have Fundamentalist, Evangelical Literalistic Atheists arguing with me. Then they realise that I’ve never believed something they are arguing against, and I’m not evading the question. The Catholic Church has a much stronger (we had a lot of research time for debates) base for argument in the inerrancy of the Bible.
I’ve yet to see something wrong be pointed out in the Bible without finding some kind of reasonable and logical (this is the fact, when they use facts) explanation refuting the previous claim. A big reason for these ‘mistakes’ is because of typographical errors in certain copies of the Bible. However, a quick glance and in the Hebrew Bible will clear things up.
[quote]kamui wrote:
metaphysics, philosophies and religions are constructs, but they are not simply “imagined”.
[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? [/quote]
relativism states that morality is relative to its historical, cultural, psychological or sociological context.
it’s the moral version of “to each their own”.
usually this position is based on the asumption that there is no universal moral law and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions are meaningless and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions can be reduced to non-moral factors and meanings.
what you describe (the answer to the question “what ought I do” is relative to the dilemma) is called casuistry.
it’s a specific kind of moral absolutism, and was once the speciality of… the jesuits.
[/quote]
The funny thing is, that all these moral relativists, one, self-contradicting, and, two, happen to be relativist only when it’s not Christians. Heard it a bunch of times, like this history book my aunt asked me to look at for her daughter. It is talking about the Spanish and the Aztecs, however it berates the Spanish and doesn’t mention the fact that the Aztecs by this time were cutting out people’s hearts while still alive. Or, the fact that they were eating each other, no that is fine because morals are relative and we shouldn’t bring up that fact because it is not even important…they weren’t doing anything wrong.
However, Spanish Catholics, horrible people, what are they doing? Converting those poor Aztecs? Teaching them it is not okay to sacrifice humans and eat their flesh? That is not cool, totally fucked up. Should have stayed away from the Aztecs, because it was the relative morals of the time and place.
this is true, but this is partly because this board is very US-centric.
in Europe, catholicism is stronger and atheism is older and, often, more mature and somewhat “pacified”.
most of my friends are atheists, and none of them will ever claim that the Bible has been “refuted” nor that it is even refutable.
the difference between the realm of religion and the realm of science seems to be much clearer here.
Chris, you eat the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. You even drink his blood.
[yeahyeah, symbolism]
Why is it on these religion threads, we always start with one topic (i.e. do people fear atheists) and end up debating: A) The existence of God B) Evolution vs. Creation or C) Can you prove the Bible
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Too many here are contending that absolute morality comes and can only come from god.
Those peopl haven’t however, provided any evidence to demonstrate that it actually comes from god. It most likely came from men, and masquerades as divine.[/quote]
I do not think the likes of Aquinas masqueraded as divine. But, of course you would rather argue straw men then defending relativism.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Does the existence of the Taliban in any way imply that democracy is invalid, and people should accept the moral values of the Taliban as equal to their own?
[/quote]
Yes, according to relativism they live in a different time and place (specifically place) from me. Therefore comparing my morals with their morals would not work, since morals are inherently relative to the type of people, where they live, and when they lived.
[quote]
Obviously not, and that’s my point. People can believe deeply in democracy, even to the point of giving their lives to preserve it, without needing a supernatural sanction to do so.
Human morality is still morality. Recognizing the source as human rather than supernatural says nothing about the degree of commitment people demonstrate toward their moral system, or the level of tolerance they might have toward conflicting moral systems.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as divine morality. There is only human and pseudodivine morality. If there were a divine morality, religious people would agree on these morals, instead of squabbling over whether measuring one’s steps on the Sabbath is a Good or Bad thing according to god X. There is just as much relativism in the religious world as there is in the mundane world.
Claiming that your god can beat up my god is no different than claiming democracy is superior to the radical morals of the Taliban. [/quote]
Chris, does that mean that if it was proven there is no god, you would join the Taliban, or at least wouldn’t fight against them?
I’m just throwing this out there.
Observe the formula:
(+ethics)x(intelligence)=creativity
(-ethics)x(intelligence)=destruction
intelligence is always positive to varying degrees
I’d like to take credit for this formula but it’s not mine.
This describes an evolutionary process of the universe. I feel that everything in the universe has intelligence and a type of free will(described as ethics in the formula). Yes, even an atom. An atom has different valence levels and forms in which it can exist which could be described as an intelligence. An atom can only be created so many ways under so many circumstances. An atom can combine with other atoms to make a more complex molecule. Sometimes, two separate atoms under the exact same circumstances will do different things. These two atoms ‘choose’ different paths. Why? No one really knows. Some say it has to do with the probabilistic nature of quantum physics and some even think that our brains are advanced quantum computers and quantum physics has effects on both a small and large scale but I don’t know enough on the subject to elaborate, confirm, or refute the idea. Sometimes, the original intelligence of an atom will make an ‘ethical choice’ and combine with another atom to increase creativity in existence.
This is an idea that can be extended to evolution, culture, society, and just about anything that exists.
The Hitler scenario. Germany was a force with a high degree of intelligence, but extremely poor ethics. The combination led to a huge amount of destruction as can be seen by the formula and history.
And wow! This thread blew up since last night and this morning.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Chris, you eat the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. You even drink his blood.
[yeahyeah, symbolism][/quote]
Don’t Catholics believe that once you drink the wine and eat the cracker/bread in communion that it literally becomes the flesh of Jesus? If so, isn’t that ritual cannibalism?
If so, then that suggest to me that according to the bible, sometimes eating people is wrong and sometimes it’s good.
To the Catholics on this thread: Did I get something wrong? I don’t want to assign something to your belief system that isn’t really there.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[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]
So, in the instances I listed above, and in the instances of, for example, Rwanda, Cambodia, Ethiopia, the early American South, China, Armenia, and on and on and on and on and on, what was going on with evolution?
Was it broken? [/quote]
Well I think you’ve constructed a very simplistic view which works for you, ands that’s cool but it doesn’t mean its true - For example, the above references to “instances”, you pointed out inconsistencies on how civilizations have evolved independently, but thats EXACTLY the whole point of evolution, that different area’s and people/animals will evolve in an advantageous way to suit their situation. AND the classical conditioning is a prime example of this and in fact supports it.
Also, Im not sure you even know what evolution is anymore…just google evolution/natural selection its not hard and only takes a minute.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Well I think you’ve constructed a very simplistic view which works for you, ands that’s cool but it doesn’t mean its true - For example, the above references to “instances”, you pointed out inconsistencies on how civilizations have evolved independently,
[/quote]
Uh, no, that’s not what I was pointing out at all.
