[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
It is unfortunate that many arguing against natural selection favoring morality fail to have a strong understanding of evolution. I am all in favor or an argument where all parties are concerned with finding the truth and having their consciousness raised… with that being said it is irritating that a significant portion of people arguing in this thread simply want to be heard and have little intention of listening.
Whenever science is unable to provide an answer to a problem people assume that the problem is with science itself. Sometimes it’s okay to understand that just because we don’t understand something fully now doesn’t mean we won’t understand it in the future. An example is cell metabolism, for decades we knew that cellular respiration occurred in the mitochondria but we still did not know how this process generated ATP. Then finally about 9 years ago some very smart Japanese researchers figured out how the protein ATP synthase worked and we now understand it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for, “Well science can’t figure out so by default it must be God.”
Creationists tried to used the intricacies of the eye and the flagellar motor to disprove darwinian selection with no success. Although a little more abstract, the same thing will happen with morality. Altruism is not exclusive to humans. It is present in many, many species because in the long run it ensures success of a species. Kin selection very easily demonstrates how selection of “moral” traits in humans is beneficial. It can even be used to explain the presence of homosexuality… But let’s not open that can of worms.
The idea that our morality is God given is not a simplistic answer… It just makes the problem more complicated. And even if morality were God-given where do we dig up this morality? From the Bible? In that case I’m an abomination if I eat shellfish and if I stray from the faith I should be stoned to death. “You’re looking at it too literally”. Am I? How do we decide which passages to put significance on? We can’t. Soon the entire book breaks up into an interesting work of literature that’s only message is allegorical at best.
Before I get any religious members telling me I’m ignorant, I would like to say that I have read the entire Bible, New Testament and Old Testament. I have also spent many, many nights staying up late reading scripture from the other Abrahamic religions as well as the religions of the East. Despite being an atheist, it’s somewhat of a hobby of mine to read religious scripture… I find them fascinating.[/quote]
Ghosty buddy…
No one here cares about that kind of stuff.
Possibly try nuttying it up a bit.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you mean by nuttying it up a bit?
Why talk about human morality at all if the argument isn’t going to be a serious and intellectual one?
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
It is unfortunate that many arguing against natural selection favoring morality fail to have a strong understanding of evolution. I am all in favor or an argument where all parties are concerned with finding the truth and having their consciousness raised… with that being said it is irritating that a significant portion of people arguing in this thread simply want to be heard and have little intention of listening.
Whenever science is unable to provide an answer to a problem people assume that the problem is with science itself. Sometimes it’s okay to understand that just because we don’t understand something fully now doesn’t mean we won’t understand it in the future. An example is cell metabolism, for decades we knew that cellular respiration occurred in the mitochondria but we still did not know how this process generated ATP. Then finally about 9 years ago some very smart Japanese researchers figured out how the protein ATP synthase worked and we now understand it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for, “Well science can’t figure out so by default it must be God.”
Creationists tried to used the intricacies of the eye and the flagellar motor to disprove darwinian selection with no success. Although a little more abstract, the same thing will happen with morality. Altruism is not exclusive to humans. It is present in many, many species because in the long run it ensures success of a species. Kin selection very easily demonstrates how selection of “moral” traits in humans is beneficial. It can even be used to explain the presence of homosexuality… But let’s not open that can of worms.
The idea that our morality is God given is not a simplistic answer… It just makes the problem more complicated. And even if morality were God-given where do we dig up this morality? From the Bible? In that case I’m an abomination if I eat shellfish and if I stray from the faith I should be stoned to death. “You’re looking at it too literally”. Am I? How do we decide which passages to put significance on? We can’t. Soon the entire book breaks up into an interesting work of literature that’s only message is allegorical at best.
Before I get any religious members telling me I’m ignorant, I would like to say that I have read the entire Bible, New Testament and Old Testament. I have also spent many, many nights staying up late reading scripture from the other Abrahamic religions as well as the religions of the East. Despite being an atheist, it’s somewhat of a hobby of mine to read religious scripture… I find them fascinating.[/quote]
Ghosty buddy…
No one here cares about that kind of stuff.
Possibly try nuttying it up a bit.
[/quote]
PWI has many similarities to an insane asylum. For every “doctor” or “intern” there are ten straight jacket wearing “patients”.
One thing that all people here have in common (whether doctor, intern, or patient) is a deeply guarded and entrenched belief system.
You can type until you’re purple and blue in the face… but you’ll never see a paradigm shift in anyone’s core beliefs.
Know full well that you’ve entered a hall of warped mirrors and ranting, wailing minds.
I’m curious what you mean by nuttying it up a bit?
Why talk about human morality at all if the argument isn’t going to be a serious and intellectual one?
[/quote]
PWI has many similarities to an insane asylum. For every “doctor” or “intern” there are ten straight jacket wearing “patients”. One thing that all the people here have in common (whether doctor, intern, or patient) is a deeply guarded and entrenched belief system. You can type until you’re purple and blue in the face… but you’ll never see a paradigm shift in anyone’s core beliefs.
Know full well that you’ve entered a hall of warped mirrors and ranting, raving minds.
[quote]pat wrote:
I just want you to make an argument…You ask a question you think is based on scripture, but it’s not, then you get all pissed off and spend the next 10 pages bitching and moaning and calling me all sorts of names because I won’t answer a loaded question that isn’t actually based on the the scripture you think it is. Move on… It’s not hard.
Then you claim all this intellectual wizardry and you didn’t even know the question you were asking wasn’t based on what you thought it was.
Then you claim to be debating, I an trying to figure out what they hell your debating? Other than level insults and call me names, you haven’t said anything. What am I supposed to debate you on? The names you call me?
If you want to debate, then put forth something to debate about. If I don’t know what the debate is about, I cannot debate you. I mean I can call you names too, but it has no meaning in the end, the proof is in the pudding. I cannot debate a ‘nothing’.
[/quote]
Lolwut? Other than “weasel”, what have I called you? When it comes to insults, you’ve expressed a far more colourful vocabulary.
I’ve had an exchange with pretty much every Christian on this site. You are the only one in which every conversation goes nowhere and I’ve seen the same happen with your other conversations aswell. It’s not me, it’s you.
[/quote]
Oh whatever… I don’t really care what you call me anyway. You still lack a point and your question was and is still stupid. I thought you would have figured out why by now. Do need the detailed explanation as to why it’s dumb and infantile? or has your dilligent study of the bible reveal that yet?
And yes, I do have colorful vocabulary.
[quote]
[quote]
As far as Noah, I believe there was a flood, I believe it was a big one, I believe a guy named Noah existed and there was an ark he was on. Whether it was world wide, I don’t know. I do find it interesting that other societies have a flood account from roughly the same time period, but I don’t know how big the actual flood was.
I am not a biblical literalist, the point of the Noah story and it’s importance in salvation history is bigger than the flood. How balls on accurate the account is I don’t know, but I am pretty cure it’s based on real events. [/quote]
Hmm… why do you doubt that it is an entirely literal story?[/quote]
The ealier the stories the more likely they were initially handed down by oral tradition, which a grape vine effect. Second, all ancient stories tend to get a washing of loftiness which may not have been their, but was require for effect for it’s intended audience which was a bunch of uneducated, somewhat nomadic, poor, powerless and otherwise unimportant people in the scope of the world. Loftiness was often required to make a story stick and be important. Your dealing with a people who didn’t know they shouldn’t eat vultures and fuck goats.
Whether or not the flood was world wide or not, I am not sure, but I know an arc the size that Noah had couldn’t hold every animal in the world, not even close. But he probably did have every edible animal and every beast of burden he would need to start over.
Whether the story itself is literal is not as important as the fact of the floods purpose and who Noah was as a very important person in the history of these people and us.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it. [/quote]Please define what YOU mean by “humanism” before I proceed on another misunderstanding with you. I have shoulders, chest and tri’s now though. I won’t be able to respond til later. I addressed you in the epistemology thread too btw.
[/quote]
When I think of Humanism, I think of secular humanism as described by atheists.
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
PWI has many similarities to an insane asylum. For every “doctor” or “intern” there are ten straight jacket wearing “patients”. One thing that all the people here have in common (whether doctor, intern, or patient) is a deeply guarded and entrenched belief system. You can type until you’re purple and blue in the face… but you’ll never see a paradigm shift in anyone’s core beliefs.
Know full well that you’ve entered a hall of warped mirrors and ranting, raving minds.
[/quote]
You haven’t been around that long. There is quite a rich diversity here. We’re talking politics and religion here. These are things that tend to get people all pissed off. This is a diverse place with a lot of things represented as well as trolls which you will find any where. But I have had some great debates here. Despite the trolls there are a lot of smart and thoughtful people here and no I don’t mean just the ones that agree with me or vice versa. It is possible to have calm mutually respectful dialog with people who disagree, but that does take two reasonable people.
Now if you walk around here with your dick out and you think you are smarter and better than everybody else, then you’re likely going to get taken down a notch.
PWI has many similarities to an insane asylum. For every “doctor” or “intern” there are ten straight jacket wearing “patients”. One thing that all the people here have in common (whether doctor, intern, or patient) is a deeply guarded and entrenched belief system. You can type until you’re purple and blue in the face… but you’ll never see a paradigm shift in anyone’s core beliefs.
Know full well that you’ve entered a hall of warped mirrors and ranting, raving minds.
[/quote]
You haven’t been around that long. There is quite a rich diversity here. We’re talking politics and religion here. These are things that tend to get people all pissed off. This is a diverse place with a lot of things represented as well as trolls which you will find any where. But I have had some great debates here. Despite the trolls there are a lot of smart and thoughtful people here and no I don’t mean just the ones that agree with me or vice versa. It is possible to have calm mutually respectful dialog with people who disagree, but that does take two reasonable people.
Now if you walk around here with your dick out and you think you are smarter and better than everybody else, then you’re likely going to get taken down a notch. [/quote]
Sure thing Dr. Pat.
But as a patient here at PWI, I have a slightly different perspective.
PWI has many similarities to an insane asylum. For every “doctor” or “intern” there are ten straight jacket wearing “patients”. One thing that all the people here have in common (whether doctor, intern, or patient) is a deeply guarded and entrenched belief system. You can type until you’re purple and blue in the face… but you’ll never see a paradigm shift in anyone’s core beliefs.
Know full well that you’ve entered a hall of warped mirrors and ranting, raving minds.
[/quote]
You haven’t been around that long. There is quite a rich diversity here. We’re talking politics and religion here. These are things that tend to get people all pissed off. This is a diverse place with a lot of things represented as well as trolls which you will find any where. But I have had some great debates here. Despite the trolls there are a lot of smart and thoughtful people here and no I don’t mean just the ones that agree with me or vice versa. It is possible to have calm mutually respectful dialog with people who disagree, but that does take two reasonable people.
Now if you walk around here with your dick out and you think you are smarter and better than everybody else, then you’re likely going to get taken down a notch. [/quote]
Sure thing Dr. Pat.
But as a patient here at PWI, I have a slightly different perspective.
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh whatever… I don’t really care what you call me anyway. You still lack a point and your question was and is still stupid. I thought you would have figured out why by now. Do need the detailed explanation as to why it’s dumb and infantile? or has your dilligent study of the bible reveal that yet?
And yes, I do have colorful vocabulary.[/quote]
You talk-the-talk, Pat, let’s see you walk-the-walk. Stop simply asserting that you are right and show it.
[quote]
The ealier the stories the more likely they were initially handed down by oral tradition, which a grape vine effect. Second, all ancient stories tend to get a washing of loftiness which may not have been their, but was require for effect for it’s intended audience which was a bunch of uneducated, somewhat nomadic, poor, powerless and otherwise unimportant people in the scope of the world. Loftiness was often required to make a story stick and be important. Your dealing with a people who didn’t know they shouldn’t eat vultures and fuck goats.
Whether or not the flood was world wide or not, I am not sure, but I know an arc the size that Noah had couldn’t hold every animal in the world, not even close. But he probably did have every edible animal and every beast of burden he would need to start over.
Whether the story itself is literal is not as important as the fact of the floods purpose and who Noah was as a very important person in the history of these people and us.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh whatever… I don’t really care what you call me anyway. You still lack a point and your question was and is still stupid. I thought you would have figured out why by now. Do need the detailed explanation as to why it’s dumb and infantile? or has your dilligent study of the bible reveal that yet?
And yes, I do have colorful vocabulary.[/quote]
You talk-the-talk, Pat, let’s see you walk-the-walk. Stop simply asserting that you are right and show it.
[/quote]
Fine. The reason why the question ‘Would you kill people if God asked you to, like Saul?’ is retarded because it didn’t happen that way in the scriptures. He didn’t just randomly pop down from heaven to some random person and say ‘kill’. In every case the scenarios and characters were well developed and so were the reasons. To ask the question out of context of all that, is flat retarded. It has no basis in scripture, it has no basis in reality, it’s a random out of context question. Your expectation that I would answer a question like that, without any basis or proper context, on a matter such as that is mind boggling quite frankly and if you had read the bible, it would have been obvious.
[quote]
[quote]
The ealier the stories the more likely they were initially handed down by oral tradition, which a grape vine effect. Second, all ancient stories tend to get a washing of loftiness which may not have been their, but was require for effect for it’s intended audience which was a bunch of uneducated, somewhat nomadic, poor, powerless and otherwise unimportant people in the scope of the world. Loftiness was often required to make a story stick and be important. Your dealing with a people who didn’t know they shouldn’t eat vultures and fuck goats.
Whether or not the flood was world wide or not, I am not sure, but I know an arc the size that Noah had couldn’t hold every animal in the world, not even close. But he probably did have every edible animal and every beast of burden he would need to start over.
Whether the story itself is literal is not as important as the fact of the floods purpose and who Noah was as a very important person in the history of these people and us.[/quote]
So, you don’t contend that the bible if flawless? [/quote]
Flawless in what way? I don’t contend it’s historically spot on, but that’s fine. It’s not a history book, history is a vehicle for the communication, not an end in itself. The bible is many things, it has many authors, many points, and many forms of prose. It can be simple, and it can be very difficult to get to. I am pretty sure that’s by design. If God wanted to make it easy, he would have.
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
[quote]Sloth wrote:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract[/quote]
Well, the authors do have a point, if you accept the commonly espoused justifications for abortion.
I doubt anyone here will agree, though. Right? Squirm squirm.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract[/quote]
This is why more people agree to limiting it to the first trimester.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract[/quote]
This is why more people agree to limiting it to the first trimester.[/quote]
I will not continue beyond this post because it will just turn this thread into one more abortion thread and there are plenty already, so if you feel like replying feel free to start a new thread laying out your response.
That there is absolutely no difference between the first trimester or the third, this side of the vagina or that, is exactly the point of my previous post. You think there is some difference in kind because you follow the crowd and you have not thought about this on your own.
Your justification for ripping a child limb from limb and vacuuming up the remains from the womb with a Hoover is the same as these doctors propose in their justification for more “traditional” infanticide.
You don’t want to believe this but you will not be able to make an argument otherwise. I promise you. You can’t.
If you recall, I also specified “if God asked you to kill Hitler, would you?” << Most people would say “yes”, even without God’s direct command to do so. So, you are a soldier in WW1. You come across private Adolf Hitler and you have a prime opportunity to kill him. before you have a chance to decide for yourself, God speaks to you and tells you to end this man’s life, or else he will do terrible things to the Jewish people. Given that this act is justified in God’s eyes, would you do it?
[quote]
Flawless in what way? I don’t contend it’s historically spot on, but that’s fine. It’s not a history book, history is a vehicle for the communication, not an end in itself. The bible is many things, it has many authors, many points, and many forms of prose. It can be simple, and it can be very difficult to get to. I am pretty sure that’s by design. If God wanted to make it easy, he would have. [/quote]
There are other religions that claim absolute historical accuracy. How are you sure they aren’t right?
You say this is God making his word difficult to understand, but I say this is an excuse. It’s the same as saying “God works in mysterious ways”.
If you recall, I also specified “if God asked you to kill Hitler, would you?” << Most people would say “yes”, even without God’s direct command to do so. So, you are a soldier in WW1. You come across private Adolf Hitler and you have a prime opportunity to kill him. before you have a chance to decide for yourself, God speaks to you and tells you to end this man’s life, or else he will do terrible things to the Jewish people. Given that this act is justified in God’s eyes, would you do it?
[/quote]
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand.
This is no longer the case, that time has past and something new has been established.
Rather than killing, we are asked to ‘lay down our lives for our friends’. That’s a far more interesting prospect. Rather than taking a life, are you willing to give your up for somebody else?
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand.
This is no longer the case, that time has past and something new has been established.
Rather than killing, we are asked to ‘lay down our lives for our friends’. That’s a far more interesting prospect. Rather than taking a life, are you willing to give your up for somebody else?
[quote]
For the same reasons you are sure they are not right.
Now these ‘Biblical Literalists’ aren’t as common as you may think, they are just loud. There are parts that are literal; there are parts that are historically accurate, but all that is just a tool for the word of God. It’s not a history book, and it’s not meant to be. It’s a collection of many books, each with a distinct purpose. There is a lot to the bible, you can study the many facets all your life and never finish you work. For a finite book, it is seemingly infinitely dense.
It just says to me, you don’t like the way he did it and he should have done it better. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that he doesn’t exist.
Like I said the ‘God is a big meany’ argument is a rather poor argument. Even if he was a big meany, it does not mean it does not exist or that the bible is false.
If I were to render a guess as to the reason it is sometimes elusive and difficult, is so not to trump freewill. Not everything is difficult to understand, some of it is easy to get. It’s meant to be both.
