That Jesus died and came back to life is not a metaphysical or spiritual claim.
It is purely a biological (physical) claim. If one makes such a claim, they need to show extraordinary evidence.
That there was a virgin birth is also a biological (physical) claim. Evidence is again required.
If your answer is the word ‘faith’ then why do you believe the virgin birth any more than the claim that an angel dictated the quran to Muhammad?
Any takers?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Natural selection
[/quote]
Evolution or Darwinism?[/quote]
What are you getting at here?[/quote]
Which one are you referring to, because some folks use a general term evolution when they in fact mean the specific theory of evolution by Darwin. Different theories of evolution.[/quote]
I am a proponent of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. I am also a burgeoning fan of the emerging theories of phenotypic regulation an epigenetic regulation.
“Darwinism,” is a term that was penned by… crap, I can’t remember if it was a Catholic Bishop or some Protestant clergy… as a pejorative to define those who were proponents of Darwin.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
And, no. Logic is not a science. It a tool that can be employed by science. [/quote]
Okay, so philosophy is not a science, I should just scratch that off the list of sciences. Oh, okay thank you for letting me know. I’ll let the universities know. While we’re at we should probably scratch off economics since we can’t run experiments and it is based of logic as well.[/quote]
Philosophy and economics are arguably studies or arts… not sciences. This, too is a debate that has raged for decades and will not likely be resolved here.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Brother Chris,
Do me a favor. The next time you take mass, save some stool samples for the next few days. I will gladly pay to have them analyzed.
If upon examination of your stool sample, it is evident that you consumed human flesh, I will immediately convert… no lie. I will immediately convert to catholicism. [/quote]
It is called transubstantiation, not transformation – or whatever you’re talking about. It is still in the form of a wafer and wine, however the substance of the wine and wafer has wholly changed into that of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Oh, man… I love the transubstantiation argument.
Okay, now… define “substance.”[/quote]
Got this off google: the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists; “DNA is the substance of our genes”[/quote]
Good… so get poopin’… I can’t wait for the lab results.
[quote]kamui wrote:
in this context (transubstantiation), a substance is something that subsist in itself and apart from anything else.
one concept Christianity borrowed to pre-existing (pagan) philosophies. (in the same time they borrowed the concept of Natural Law, btw)
it should be noted that, in this meaning, a substance is not necessarily a physical / material thing.
[/quote]
This, Brother Chris, is what the Catholic church defines “substance” as… a very convenient dodge of having to provide actual evidence.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.[/quote]
True, the Taliban has laws. So did Mr. Stalin.[/quote]
What’s your point?[/quote]
I was demonstrating how everything is moral, therefore, nothing is moral. If a human can think up the standard, then it must be moral. If others have differing standards, then no one is morally correct…or, perhaps all are. If the laws and values of one society executes raped women because they lacked sufficient eyewitnesses to their vicimization, yet another soceity protects the victim and incarcerates the rapist, then both are moral. Or, both are immoral. Or, more precisely, neither are moral or immoral.
So risk takers are moral in vicitmizing others, while the potential victim is moral in oppossing them. Further, the risk takers are moral and validated in their triumph over the victim. And the victim is moral and validated when they triump over the risk taker. Basically, nonsense.
Even the inclusion of divinity in two of the 3 options, would be as moral as the the one lacking. And the divine-less option no more moral than the first two. Furthermore, if geno and phenotype are all there is too it, then religious morality is no less or worse a human standard than…well, whatever. Unless of course, one of the most common shared systems in human history isn’t a human standard. Or, if religious predisposition just so happnes to be the orientation conviently missing (though religious thought has been about as wide-spread as it gets).
[/quote]
Okay.
Let me see if I can make this clear for you:
I AM NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST.
Got it?
To elaborate a bit: opining that morals originate from a set of evolutionary tools does not exclude the possibility that some moral codes are better than others… and by better, I mean that they are inherently advantageous to the survival of the species.
[/quote]
So, 60 million dead human beings is "inherently advantageous to the survival of the species? "
Is this another part of evolution that I just don’t understand? [/quote]
Well, Mr. Obtuse, you tell me if you understand it. Place 60 million dead human beings in the context of billions of years and get back to me.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Evolution sounds pretty smart. How does it know when it’s advantageous to use morals, and when it should go with the baser instincts?
[/quote]
You really need to read up on evolution. It is evident from your posts that you do not understand the mechanisms of natural selection.
[/quote]
Hey, I’m just going off what the evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists have been claiming evolution is responsible for. [/quote]
Weak cop-out, Cortes.
if this; “evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists” is directed at me, then could you please do us all the service of pointing out where I have claimed that the process of natural selection gives perfect results every time?[/quote]
Pay attention.
I never said you said that. In fact, you stated multiple times that evolution is not perfect.
But then, you also said the following:
Problem is, what you are presenting, as it applies to morality, is not science, it’s faith. And with the fervor that you guys take your pre-ordained, sacrosanct conclusion and then bend all your premises to the breaking point to make certain they never stray from that worldview, well, Evolution (PBTH) starts looking more and more like a religion.
I have been trying to show this for post after post now while you and krsoneeeee feign ignorance to what I am clearly indicating while, ironically, peppering your replies with haughty little book recommendations and supercilious accusations of our ignorance.
The thing I find most amusing, or, perhaps, sad, is that you demand PROOF and EVIDENCE for anyone else’s assertion of religious belief, while you cannot show a single shred of PROOF for your own convictions. And the “evidence” can only ever be used to explain why your conclusion is true.
[/quote]
You are a trip, man. You demand that all who debate you present you with only concise arguments, yet you find it perfectly reasonable to lead us all on what turns out to be a wild goose chase here. You could have come out three pages ago and just said, “Hey, You guys sure seem to be holding to your ideologies with a religious like fervor.”
To which I would have responded, “Well, that’s an ironic characterization.” and, "vociferously defending a theory and providing evidence to support it is hardly akin to defending religious ideology… the obvious difference is that I can provide you with evidence 
"
As for my “haughty little book recommendations;” I’m offering you sources for supporting evidence to my arguments, genius… exactly what you’re asking me for.
Once again, for your edification, I offer you the following evidence to support my claims:
The fossil record
The human genome and all of the component it shares with those of animals.
The body of work of Darwin
The body of work of Hauser
The body of work of Piaget
The body of work of Richardson
Should I go on?
How about rather than ignoring or dismissing my proofs, you exhibit some level of understanding of them and argue their merit? Your dismissal of the “smart baby” experiments of Piaget earlier in this thread proves only ignorance and a lack of desire to learn.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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]
We get it, you’re a Catholic groupie. Go hit on a Pastor and calm the fuck down.[/quote]
Catholic groupie…because I don’t have the time to search the entire bible and all books that my have something to refute in the Bible I am now a Catholic groupie and a homosexual. Awesome.[/quote]
It seems you can’t miss any opportunity to say fuck you to protestants and advertise for your church.[/quote]
It’s being ironic, since Tib calls my Church the equivalent, I refer to his as a vampire…not necessarily evil, but looked upon as evil by the majority of society.[/quote]
I like your sense of humor
[quote]kamui wrote:
Cultural anthropology certainly plays a role, but it’s not the overarching science here.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I’m not saying evolution provided morals. Only that evolution gave us the sophistication to be able to create civilizations and be able to tell various kinds of historical counts through either myth or record or whatever that teach lessons that are always important for increasing humanity’s creativity (ability to for the species to continue and well-being for all).[/quote]
yes, but you end up with an utilitarian definition of morality.
this morality basicaly states that “it’s right to do this or that because it maximize creativity”.
not that it is right or wrong per se.
it’s an hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.
you are left with nothing to answer to someone who say “i don’t give a fuck about creativity, so it’s not wrong for me”.[/quote]
Welcome to the hard truth of reality.
Try going to sleep at night with this knowledge.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[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]
The difference between electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery and the central claims of the Bible is that electricity, nuclear science, quantum physics and brain surgery all have results and/or evidence of their existence or efficacy that can be observed, tested and repeated.[/quote]
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t think I had to explain the comparison. You see the things above and the Bible have in common this: Simply because they are not understood by someone (or large groups of people) does not mean that they are to be laughed at mocked, or simply dismissed. This may come as a surprise but humans don’t know everything. WOW—you okay? In fact it seems that science changes every few years. Remember pluto? Enough said?
As far as God, Christ and the Bible I’ve said many times that it takes faith. As the Bible says it is impossible to please God without faith. If someone sets out to prove the existence of God it will only end in frustration as faith is the key ingredient. I don’t suspect that the Bible would put so much emphasis on faith if it was going to be proven by human standards that there is a God. That would be contradictory now wouldn’t it? At that point I would be questioning the Bible and the rolls here would be reversed.
On a side note, how old are you? I read an interesting article about atheism and young males. Seems that about 90% are young males. Just wondering if you fall into that demographic. No big deal.
Zeb
[/quote]
And, this is where the debate ends. You have decided that “faith” is an acceptable tool for understanding. I will never agree to this.
I’m 35, married and have two kids. I didn’t acknowledge my atheism until I was 30… spent most of my life running from it. Reality is some scary shit, so I understand why most people choose religion over it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I am saying that NOBODY, EVER has proven that there once lived a guy named Jesus, who was the son of God, who was killed on a cross and subsequently resurrected, and who now lives in a wonderful place called Heaven. Nor has anyone ever proven that a place called Heaven exists, or that a place called Hell exists… or any of the other outlandish claims of the Bible. [/quote]
Well, hold on now, in my above comments I was talking about the existence of God. Not that Jesus Christ lived. Jesus is as much an historical figure as Plato. As you know Christians believe that he was the personification of God on earth. That can be debated by non-Christians, but his existence, that’s a fact!
[/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
That Jesus died and came back to life is not a metaphysical or spiritual claim.
It is purely a biological (physical) claim. If one makes such a claim, they need to show extraordinary evidence.
That there was a virgin birth is also a biological (physical) claim. Evidence is again required.
If your answer is the word ‘faith’ then why do you believe the virgin birth any more than the claim that an angel dictated the quran to Muhammad?
Any takers?[/quote]
I hate to be the one advocating for religion here… but, asexual reproduction is not unheard of. I don’t know of any examples of it in humans, but it certainly does happen in animals. Virgin birth does not (there has to be an epigenetic imprint), but it is conceivable that a woman gave birth without being schtouped by her husband or any other man… this is one of the “less” outrageous claims made in the Bible.
Can I now declare victory based on my overwhelming barrage of posts?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Well, Mr. Obtuse, you tell me if you understand it. Place 60 million dead human beings in the context of billions of years and get back to me.
[/quote]
That’s funny, I was under the distinct impression that we were placing the 60 million dead human beings in the context of a species.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Well, Mr. Obtuse, you tell me if you understand it. Place 60 million dead human beings in the context of billions of years and get back to me.
[/quote]
That’s funny, I was under the distinct impression that we were placing the 60 million dead human beings in the context of a species. [/quote]
Ever walk and chew gum at the same time?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
That Jesus died and came back to life is not a metaphysical or spiritual claim.
It is purely a biological (physical) claim. If one makes such a claim, they need to show extraordinary evidence.
That there was a virgin birth is also a biological (physical) claim. Evidence is again required.
If your answer is the word ‘faith’ then why do you believe the virgin birth any more than the claim that an angel dictated the quran to Muhammad?
Any takers?[/quote]
I hate to be the one advocating for religion here… but, asexual reproduction is not unheard of. I don’t know of any examples of it in humans, but it certainly does happen in animals. Virgin birth does not (there has to be an epigenetic imprint), but it is conceivable that a woman gave birth without being schtouped by her husband or any other man… this is one of the “less” outrageous claims made in the Bible.[/quote]
The claim is specific to humans. I’m not well versed in biological sciences, but as far as I’m aware there haven’t been any documented cases of asexual human reproduction. I’m not saying it is impossible - I’m saying that the claim is sufficiently within the realms of the physical to justify me asking for physical evidence.
Also, actually dying and coming back to life three days later is severely unlikely. Should this event occur, I would only believe it if I were given an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.
PS. You post like a gattling gun. How many arms do you have? Help of the divine perhaps?
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
That Jesus died and came back to life is not a metaphysical or spiritual claim.
It is purely a biological (physical) claim. If one makes such a claim, they need to show extraordinary evidence.
That there was a virgin birth is also a biological (physical) claim. Evidence is again required.
If your answer is the word ‘faith’ then why do you believe the virgin birth any more than the claim that an angel dictated the quran to Muhammad?
Any takers?[/quote]
I hate to be the one advocating for religion here… but, asexual reproduction is not unheard of. I don’t know of any examples of it in humans, but it certainly does happen in animals. Virgin birth does not (there has to be an epigenetic imprint), but it is conceivable that a woman gave birth without being schtouped by her husband or any other man… this is one of the “less” outrageous claims made in the Bible.[/quote]
The claim is specific to humans. I’m not well versed in biological sciences, but as far as I’m aware there haven’t been any documented cases of asexual human reproduction. I’m not saying it is impossible - I’m saying that the claim is sufficiently within the realms of the physical to justify me asking for physical evidence.
Also, actually dying and coming back to life three days later is severely unlikely. Should this event occur, I would only believe it if I were given an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.
PS. You post like a gattling gun. How many arms do you have? Help of the divine perhaps?[/quote]
Shhhhh…
The secret it that I’m actually Kali!!! Don’t tell anybody!
Actually, the truth is that I’m Cortes… well, actually Cortes is me… or something like that. One of us is schizophrenic… Have you ever seen us both post at the same time? Huh? Huh? Have you?
Prove me wrong!!!
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Regardless of whether you think it is one of the less outlandish claims made in the bible, it is like I said, sufficiently within the physical realm to demand an explanation which can’t be dodged by “I can feel his presence” etc etc and that’s why I asked a christian to elaborate on this point.
[/quote]
We can’t elaborate on it. I’m not sure why this is such an attractive avenue of attack. It’s a faith. We call it as such. You’re not pointing out something new to the faithful. I don’t understand what explanation you want for a virgin birth. I mean, you’re seeking what, a scientific name for an anatomical and physiological anomaly? We don’t and won’t offer any such thing. It is, unashamedly, a supernatural event to us.
And yes, I feel his presence, like many here feel the presence of an existing ‘moral standard.’ Hey, maybe it’s my genome. Maybe I have a predisposition, a biological orientation. Maybe Christian theological understanding flips just the right satisfaction and pleasure switches in the old gray matter. Maybe our castoffs are missing a particular allele distribution, making a sort of self-denying individual who eventually comes out of his atheistic closet. So, you might be stuck with us. Let the reproduction wars begin!
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Evolution sounds pretty smart. How does it know when it’s advantageous to use morals, and when it should go with the baser instincts?
[/quote]
You really need to read up on evolution. It is evident from your posts that you do not understand the mechanisms of natural selection.
[/quote]
Hey, I’m just going off what the evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists have been claiming evolution is responsible for. [/quote]
Weak cop-out, Cortes.
if this; “evolutionistswhoarenotmoralrelativists” is directed at me, then could you please do us all the service of pointing out where I have claimed that the process of natural selection gives perfect results every time?[/quote]
Pay attention.
I never said you said that. In fact, you stated multiple times that evolution is not perfect.
But then, you also said the following:
Problem is, what you are presenting, as it applies to morality, is not science, it’s faith. And with the fervor that you guys take your pre-ordained, sacrosanct conclusion and then bend all your premises to the breaking point to make certain they never stray from that worldview, well, Evolution (PBTH) starts looking more and more like a religion.
I have been trying to show this for post after post now while you and krsoneeeee feign ignorance to what I am clearly indicating while, ironically, peppering your replies with haughty little book recommendations and supercilious accusations of our ignorance.
The thing I find most amusing, or, perhaps, sad, is that you demand PROOF and EVIDENCE for anyone else’s assertion of religious belief, while you cannot show a single shred of PROOF for your own convictions. And the “evidence” can only ever be used to explain why your conclusion is true.
[/quote]
You are a trip, man. You demand that all who debate you present you with only concise arguments, yet you find it perfectly reasonable to lead us all on what turns out to be a wild goose chase here. You could have come out three pages ago and just said, “Hey, You guys sure seem to be holding to your ideologies with a religious like fervor.”
To which I would have responded, “Well, that’s an ironic characterization.” and, "vociferously defending a theory and providing evidence to support it is hardly akin to defending religious ideology… the obvious difference is that I can provide you with evidence "
As for my “haughty little book recommendations;” I’m offering you sources for supporting evidence to my arguments, genius… exactly what you’re asking me for.
Once again, for your edification, I offer you the following evidence to support my claims:
The fossil record
The human genome and all of the component it shares with those of animals.
The body of work of Darwin
The body of work of Hauser
The body of work of Piaget
The body of work of Richardson
Should I go on?
How about rather than ignoring or dismissing my proofs, you exhibit some level of understanding of them and argue their merit? Your dismissal of the “smart baby” experiments of Piaget earlier in this thread proves only ignorance and a lack of desire to learn.
[/quote]
Oh my God.
I have no problems at all with evolution/natural selection, so you can stop waving it in my face like some kind of trump card.
You’ve provided “proofs?” The baby thing?
Unless you redefine your argument again, you’ve stated that all “morals” are derived from evolution. AND that some morals are “better” than others.
So, you can show me evidence of this “better,” no? (…or, perhaps this is Endgame and you have been patiently waiting to unleash an entire handbag full of “proofs” upon my feeble demands, you sly dog, you.)
As a matter of fact, I have one for you, too. Now, you seem to have a lot of contradictory ideas, and tend to hold grudges and behave churlishly when someone doesn’t toe your line of thinking that you have yet to define, and the author is not a fan of using logical fallacies to muddy a discussion and cloud inconsistencies in reasoning, as you clearly are, but if you can swallow your troglodytic pride for a few moments you really can expect to learn a little something. Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation Of Moral Relativism, as well as his series on philosophy, are just the books for you. And yeah, I get it, you are not a relativist. It’s just that, I don’t know how, the arguments he employs in the book somehow apply perfectly to the statements you’ve made here so far.
Now, you tell me, how motivated are you to click over to Amazon right now?