2:35
Why bring Hitchens in?
Response to your edit.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT: Not that anybody will probably care, but here is a man who earned his doctorate and left medical school as a committed atheistic evolutionist. After hearing the work of Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith, a man with three earned doctorates and numerous posts of scientific responsibility (since that’s what seems to twirl everyone’s beanie around here), on how bio informational reality is entirely inexplicable on the basis of any possible version of evolution, he eventually was subdued and redeemed by the living God. He gives some examples of how the belief that DNA coding arose without God is a straining of credulity the embracing of which requires other than any sort of adherence to the “evidence”.
I agree. You will not. Hence my unshakable conviction that epistemology must happen first. Pat, once again oblivious to the true import of his own occasional profundity, already said that. However if I were to pin him on it now he’d deny it and after I proved to him he did, he’d put me on double ignore to escape again.[/quote]
Is this the same man?
[quote]In 1966 he published the book Herkunft und Zukunft des Menschen[6] which promoted Burdick’s and other’s claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed together at Paluxy River.
source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith[/quote]
[quote]It is best known for numerous dinosaur footprints found in its bed near Glen Rose at the Dinosaur Valley State Park. The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1930s when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer in the Glen Rose Formation, which were widely publicized as evidence against the geological time scale and in favor of young-Earth creationism. However, these anachronistic “human” footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes.
source: Paluxy River - Wikipedia [/quote]
Follow up links
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=178#
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why bring Hitchens in?[/quote]
It was the quote that I cared about, not who said it, that’s why I mentioned the time(2:35-3:00)
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
2:35
I’d have asked him if molesting children is evil, despite what any human being might think. If he said no, well, it’d speak volumes about what kind of society his worldview could build. If he said yes, I’d ask him to show me the mathematical proofs. To show me good and evil through a microscope or telescope. To allow me to measure them with some instrument. A man with faith can be scary, depending. A man with none IS scary.
I wonder how the audience would’ve responded if Hitchens said no, the African slave trade was not immoral, nor did it infringe upon any rights, until the law was changed to make it so. Therefore, the African slave trade needn’t ever become ‘wrong’ had our ancestors understood that it wasn’t inherently evil.
Edit: I mean, if he was to say that the slave trade was inherently wrong regardless of–even prior to–legislation outlawing it, and changing attitudes…Show me good and evil. Show me the universe’s n commandments.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
2:35
I’d have asked him if molesting children is evil, despite what any human being might think. If he said no, well, it’d speak volumes about what kind of society his worldview could build. If he said yes, I’d ask him to show me the mathematical proofs. To show me good and evil through a microscope or telescope. To allow me to measure them with some instrument. A man with faith can be scary, depending. A man with none IS scary.[/quote]
Couldn’t the damage done to the child be measured and then translated into an equation?
Math isn’t my forte.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Couldn’t the damage done to the child be measured and then translated into an equation?
Math isn’t my forte.[/quote]
Even if it could, what does that tell you? Sandusky disagrees with you, I’m sure. Is the legitimacy of sexually relating to a child a simple opinion? What say you?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Couldn’t the damage done to the child be measured and then translated into an equation?
Math isn’t my forte.[/quote]
Even if it could, what does that tell you? Sandusky disagrees with you, I’m sure. Is the legitimacy of sexually relating to a child a simple opinion? What say you?
[/quote]
There could certainly be a biological ethics that was against child molesting. Or a utilitarian ethics. Or to go retro that ethical absolutes have a real existence. Every road doesn’t have to lead to religion defining good. There were certainly plenty of religions in the past and currently that advocate what I’d certainly call immoral behavior as good.
And if we are going to use Sandusky as a moral barometer he was a Methodist but I’d imagine his views don’t represent the church.
How about the African slave trade? Do you hold that it was immoral, evil, prior to a change in attitude and laws? That had we never changed our laws and attitudes that it would still be evil? That is, that it only became evil because we agree it is (for now). That if we changed our minds, reverted back to the practice, it would no longer be evil and wrong? That the guy today who thinks the African slave trade should’ve continued is just as right (or wrong, since it’s totally subjective opinion) as you? Do you have faith in good and evil you can’t actually falsify?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
2:35
I’d have asked him if molesting children is evil, despite what any human being might think. If he said no, well, it’d speak volumes about what kind of society his worldview could build. If he said yes, I’d ask him to show me the mathematical proofs. To show me good and evil through a microscope or telescope. To allow me to measure them with some instrument. A man with faith can be scary, depending. A man with none IS scary.[/quote]
Couldn’t the damage done to the child be measured and then translated into an equation?
Math isn’t my forte.[/quote]
There has been work done on biological systems of ethics. There are other systems as well. Probably nothing so trite as E becomes greater with increasing incidences of CM or something though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Couldn’t the damage done to the child be measured and then translated into an equation?
Math isn’t my forte.[/quote]
Even if it could, what does that tell you? Sandusky disagrees with you, I’m sure. Is the legitimacy of sexually relating to a child a simple opinion? What say you?
[/quote]
This also depends on what age bracket you consider someone a child, 18 and under, 12 and under, adolescent, but that’s another discussion.
Anyway, to me, it really just comes down to a general consensus of the masses. Back when people might have only lived to their 30s or 40s, death at childbirth and a young age was high, there was a greater emphasis on having children as soon as possible simply because a limited number of offspring would make it to an age where they would be able to reproduce themselves. I also think that this may have lead to the possibility of a genetic reason for ephebophilia/pedophilia. I hope no one will think or over-interpret that I’m advocating sex with minors, because I most certainly am not, I’m just providing a possible explanation of why some people seem hardwired in their attraction to minors.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about the African slave trade? Do you hold that it was immoral, evil, prior to a change in attitude and laws? That had we never changed our laws and attitudes that it would still be evil? That is, that it only became evil because we agree it is (for now). That if we changed our minds, reverted back to the practice, it would no longer be evil and wrong? That the guy today who thinks the African slave trade should’ve continued is just as right (or wrong, since it’s totally subjective opinion) as you? Do you have faith in good and evil you can’t actually falsify?[/quote]
I would have to refer to the golden rule regarding this.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about the African slave trade? Do you hold that it was immoral, evil, prior to a change in attitude and laws? That had we never changed our laws and attitudes that it would still be evil? That is, that it only became evil because we agree it is (for now). That if we changed our minds, reverted back to the practice, it would no longer be evil and wrong? That the guy today who thinks the African slave trade should’ve continued is just as right (or wrong, since it’s totally subjective opinion) as you? Do you have faith in good and evil you can’t actually falsify?[/quote]
I would have to refer to the golden rule regarding this.
[/quote]
That’s fine, but others would decide not to. Do you have faith that they have a moral obligation to also follow the golden rule? Or, is it just a matter of opinion of how much risk vs. reward one accepts?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about the African slave trade? Do you hold that it was immoral, evil, prior to a change in attitude and laws? That had we never changed our laws and attitudes that it would still be evil? That is, that it only became evil because we agree it is (for now). That if we changed our minds, reverted back to the practice, it would no longer be evil and wrong? That the guy today who thinks the African slave trade should’ve continued is just as right (or wrong, since it’s totally subjective opinion) as you? Do you have faith in good and evil you can’t actually falsify?[/quote]
I would have to refer to the golden rule regarding this.
[/quote]
That’s fine, but others would decide not to. Do you have faith that they have a moral obligation to also follow the golden rule? Or, is it just a matter of opinion of how much risk vs. reward one accepts?
[/quote]
I don’t think that a majority of people would be pro-slavery unless they were indoctrinated with those thoughts from a young age. Which is why telling children(who generally, look up to and believe adults) unfounded lies is a form of child abuse, IMO.
Wrt risk vs reward, I think that the risks(revolt/death/unsustainability/other) outweigh the reward(work done) that cheap nearly free of cost slave labour provides and would prove disastrous in the long run. It’s not a stable form of economy and never has been. Whenever people have been oppressed to that degree, they will revolt in which case things are worse off as the slave-based economy is put on “pause”, or they’ll be worked into the ground, ruining the slave-based economy that exists. It’s not a stable or sustainable economy.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< The reason the discussion became more energetic was your absence. >>>[/quote]That’s not a very neighborly way to start a friendship Matty. If I misunderstood you I apologize. I’m in a hurry like always. I never intentionally overlook ANYthing that ANYbody says.[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< I have a question for you, but I’m sure you’ll dodge it, why don’t you believe in the Gods of Hinduism?[/quote]Galatians 2:20[quote]<<< I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. >>>[/quote]My faith in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ precludes out of hand and by definition the possibility of any competing proposition, object of knowledge or worldview from being true.
Just like your faith in your own ability to reason from yourself, by yourself and for yourself precludes out of hand and by definition the possibility of the true and living creator God from having jurisdiction over your life. If we ever have an actually meaningful conversation I will gently and lovingly push your face into the inescapable truth of exactly that. In Jesus name =]
Oh yeah. Yep, Puluxy was a mistake. Long dealt with. You listened then to the man destroy your view based on the realities of bio information? Because I know you understand that being sometimes wrong is not the same as being always wrong or you definitely couldn't be an evolutionist.
I loved Hitchens btw. I started a thread mourning his loss. Try this debate with D,Souza
Sorry I don’t have more time now.
You know if you replace “Jesus Christ” with “Harry Potter” and “God” with “Thor” then Tiribulus’ post sounds less preachy and much easier to comprehend. Still to be read as you would read a work of fiction though.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about the African slave trade? Do you hold that it was immoral, evil, prior to a change in attitude and laws? That had we never changed our laws and attitudes that it would still be evil? That is, that it only became evil because we agree it is (for now). That if we changed our minds, reverted back to the practice, it would no longer be evil and wrong? That the guy today who thinks the African slave trade should’ve continued is just as right (or wrong, since it’s totally subjective opinion) as you? Do you have faith in good and evil you can’t actually falsify?[/quote]
I would have to refer to the golden rule regarding this.
[/quote]
That’s fine, but others would decide not to. Do you have faith that they have a moral obligation to also follow the golden rule? Or, is it just a matter of opinion of how much risk vs. reward one accepts?
[/quote]
I don’t think that a majority of people would be pro-slavery unless they were indoctrinated with those thoughts from a young age. Which is why telling children(who generally, look up to and believe adults) unfounded lies is a form of child abuse, IMO.
Wrt risk vs reward, I think that the risks(revolt/death/unsustainability/other) outweigh the reward(work done) that cheap nearly free of cost slave labour provides and would prove disastrous in the long run. It’s not a stable form of economy and never has been. Whenever people have been oppressed to that degree, they will revolt in which case things are worse off as the slave-based economy is put on “pause”, or they’ll be worked into the ground, ruining the slave-based economy that exists. It’s not a stable or sustainable economy.[/quote]
Great, but they still disagreed with you. They took on the costs and risks.
Now, do you believe they had a moral obligation to join the abolitionist’s cause. Did the slave have an inalienable right to his freedom?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Great, but they still disagreed with you. They took on the costs and risks.
Now, do you believe they had a moral obligation to join the abolitionist’s cause.[/quote]
I don’t think they had an obligation, but to do otherwise wouldn’t be in the best interests of all parties involved.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Did the slave have an inalienable right to his freedom?[/quote]
I would say yes they did have that right.