[quote]makkun wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m kinda getting the vibe that you two are flirting with each other.[/quote]
It’s the whole ZEB and Forlife romance all over again. Hating each other one moment, inseparable the next. Awww… 
Makkun
PS: I think the thread has established that people do care - not much why though…[/quote]
We’re way cuter.
Also, did you skip the part where I explained that other peoples beliefs affect those around them?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Define natural rights without god. [/quote]
Thats easy. Natural rights without god- You are born and die just like every other animal on earth, and any one or any thing can be taken from you at any moment by any one or anything that is able, with out notice or recourse, up to and including your life. You are free to do the same as you see fit.
Seem about right?
[/quote]
That’s natural law, big difference.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hell, for that matter, why don’t you prove “nature” exists, since you believe in that.[/quote]
… you want me to… prove that nature exists.
You… seriously I…
Ok. You win. This just got too stupid. I can’t keep up with someone who demands that I prove the existence of nature. Too much man, too much.[/quote]
No, I don’t expect you to prove anything. Because existence isn’t provable.
And once again, you dodge the question.[/quote]
Once again, you ask a question that you can be reasonably sure I can’t answer, so that you can claim your answer is better.
You ask me to explain where natural rights come from. I don’t know.
This will, of course, lead you, in the typical Sky-Wizard-believing way to shout “YOU DONT KNOW AND I DO! I WIN!”
So, I responded by pointing out that your methodology is bad, and you try to claim that I’m “Dodging the question”.
So, here you go: I dont know where rights come from exactly.
I do know that Sky Wizard, God, Yahweh, Zeus, Krishna, Allah, and all the other Sky People do not exist, so I know none of those are the answer.
But, of course, your point is: Since Cappedandplanit doesn’t know where rights come from, they must come from God, and God must exist.
Right?[/quote]
First, quit guessing at what I will say and arguing against what you are guessing at. It’s pretty dumb.
Natural rights aren’t logical, they aren’t reasonable, you don’t know where they come from, you can’t even define them, but yet you believe in them? And I’m dumb for believing in god?
And yes it is dodging the question when you refuse to even define terms in your argument.[/quote]
When did we talk about if natural rights are logical?
When did we talk about if natural rights are reasonable?
I dont know “where they come from” in the sense of being able to explain the exact reason each and every right, both individually, and as a whole, exists. I could easily say “They come from nature” - but that would tell you nothing (the same way “they come from god” does).
I dont have a comprehensive definition. Natural rights are the rights we have.
I do like TBG’s comment about rights being a social structure designed to protect us (and yes, that means rights come from humans, which still means they are natural rights because humans are part of nature).
You’re wildly incorrect to say that I can’t define them, just that I havent spent a significant amount of time coming up with an exact definition.
Yes, believing in God is dumb. Seriously, dude, cut the shit - you really think theres an omnipotent benevolent creator watching everything all the time? One that once spoke to people, set bushes on fire, parted seas, sent plagues… and now refuses to prove himself? You dont think its funny that the bible tells all these stories of God giving clear, unavoidable proof of his existence… yet now that same God, who stopped the sun and the moon during a battle, refuses to show himself, knowing that such proof would put an end to all of the murderous religious conflicts in the world?[/quote]
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
But rights aren’t the only thing this way. Belief in anything intangible necessitates a god. Without him there can be no such real things as beauty or love or good or bad or anything worth living for. There are only chemical reactions in your brain you label as love or morals. ANY value judgment is relative without god and not a real thing.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than evidence you’ve been ignoring me and continue make up whatever you want. Let me try to clear some things up. No, I am not a typical Christian. You see, my logic and reasoning flow backwards from most religious people (as I mentioned earlier I’m not religious, though you apparently ignored me). I don’t believe in morals because god said so. First and foremost I came to believe in the universality of right and wrong. From there I had to acknowledge the necessity of a god. I never claimed any of the things you attribute to me in your last paragraph.
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Your lines are a bit blurry. Are you actually under the impression that I’m a homosexual?[/quote]
Are you actually under the impression that you aren’t?
[/quote]
My girlfriend is.[/quote]
Right. Now you’ll try to convince us that you are totally straight.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
lol. I have to admit I dont know if you’re seriously under the impression I’m gay or just trying to out-fuckwit Zeb.[/quote]
(shakes head) I guess it’s an honor to be called a name by a far lefty like you who also happens to be the biggest douche bag on T-Nation, so thank you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
But rights aren’t the only thing this way. Belief in anything intangible necessitates a god. Without him there can be no such real things as beauty or love or good or bad or anything worth living for. There are only chemical reactions in your brain you label as love or morals. ANY value judgment is relative without god and not a real thing.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than evidence you’ve been ignoring me and continue make up whatever you want. Let me try to clear some things up. No I am not a typical Christian. You see my logic and reasoning flow backwards from most religious people (as I mentioned earlier I’m not religious, though you apparently ignored me). I don’t believe in morals because god said so. First and foremost I came to believe in the universality of wright and wrong. From there I had to acknowledge the necessity of a god. I never claimed any of the things you attribute to me in your last paragraph.
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural if you will. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
Excellent Post.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Your lines are a bit blurry. Are you actually under the impression that I’m a homosexual?[/quote]
Are you actually under the impression that you aren’t?
[/quote]
My girlfriend is.[/quote]
Right. Now you’ll try to convince us that you are totally straight.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
lol. I have to admit I dont know if you’re seriously under the impression I’m gay or just trying to out-fuckwit Zeb.[/quote]
You just don’t understand my cleverly crafted humor disguised as idiocy.
If you did, you would know that I’m just trying to out-fuckwit Zeb And flesh out a visceral response to deeply held beliefs that most people keep tucked away behind the safety of a fascade.
And you’re still gay.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
[/quote]
How society started applying them is where they come from. But, you may have a point here. Perhaps ‘rights’ are just a social construct, and not a natural, untenable fact of nature.
No, it doesn’t. The existence of the thing labeled “love”, which represents a concept which includes a chemical reaction in a persons brain, does not necessitate a god, a shaman, a cthulhu, a sky wizard, a Great Potato, or anything else supernatural.
Same for beauty or good or bad or “anything worth living for”. Stop with the pathetic “Sky Wizard exists or else nothing means anything! You have to be depressed and miserable if you don’t believe in Sky Wizard!”
Even saying that any of these things are inherent values (That a flower is inherently beautiful, regardless of the opinion of anything else in the universe, or that a flower would be beautiful if it were the only thing that existed) doesn’t “Necessitate a God”, because it does not have to follow that a God is what gave the flower its beauty - just that the beauty exists.
This is terrible logic because you claim you “came to believe in the universality of right and wrong” before “acknowledging the necessity of a god”, but then had to acknowledge said necessity based on the belief you came to without acknowledging the necessity of a god.
So, first, explain how you “Came to believe in the universality of right and wrong” before “acknowledging the necessity of a god”.
Then, explain why belief in the universality of right and wrong necessitate a god.
[quote]
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
Actually, as per this discussion, I’m starting to question the “natural rights” of man. Not because it would necessitate a god, though (it wouldnt).
Believing in “natural rights/love/beauty” as a supernatural entity (existing outside of any relationship to anything else in the universe) does not necessitate that another supernatural entity (sky wizard/god) exists - only that the former does.
Also, DD, you’re comparing a “belief” in something reasonably defensible with a “belief” in something ridiculous.
For example, I’ve never seen an electron, nor could I ‘prove’ that electrons exist. But since the atom model is the best explanation we seem to have for explaining how things work at that level, I “believe” in electrons.
However, I dont believe in leprechauns. I’ve also never seen leprechauns, I also could not ‘prove’ that they exist.
But it would be quite stupid for someone to say “How is it you can believe in electrons but not leprechauns?”
The following is a post from a blog I read sometimes. I think it applies here, and to the question in the original post of this thread:
"Among the general populace, ideas like â??atheismâ?? and â??secular moralityâ?? are treated as radical and mysterious and perhaps self-contradictory.
Among the most productive spheres of science and philosophy, phrases like â??atheismâ?? and â??secular moralityâ?? rarely appear because they are simply assumed.
When a scientist proposes an explanation for an observed phenomenon â?? a hypothesis he would like to test â?? nobody mentions that itâ??s an â??atheisticâ?? hypothesis. Of course it is. Whatâ??s the alternative? â??God did itâ??? Donâ??t be silly. If by â??atheist hypothesisâ?? you mean â??non-magical hypothesis,â?? then yes: Itâ??s an â??atheisticâ?? hypothesis. Just like every other scientific hypothesis.
When a philosopher tries to solve a particular problem in moral theory, nobody mentions that heâ??s doing â??secular morality.â?? Of course he is. Whatâ??s the alternative? â??God said soâ??? Donâ??t be silly. If by â??secular moralityâ?? you mean â??moral theory that doesnâ??t answer questions by reference to invisible magical beings,â?? then yes: Weâ??re doing â??secular morality.â?? But why bother mention that? Itâ??s like pointing out that utilitarianism is a â??unicorn-less moral theory.â?? It does moral theory without needing to call upon unicorns. Whoopty-do.
If you spend enough time reading the productive edge of science and philosophy, and then stick your head back into the popular discourse for a few minutes, hearing terms like â??atheisticâ?? and â??secular moralityâ?? is a bit jarring.
Oh God, you think. Thatâ??s where the level of discussion is, on this planet.
And then you have a choice.
You can fight the good fight. You can try to catch people up with the last 400 years of science and philosophy. You can do what Richard Dawkins and John Loftus and Paul Thagard are doing.
Or you can return to the cutting edge, and hope that people will eventually catch up so that a larger section of humanity can work together to solve the pressing problems we face â?? rather than arguing endlessly about gods and god-based morality."
Now think for a minute where we would be, in this discussion, if, instead of aruging if “morality and beauty necessitate God”, we both put aside the notion of God and both decided to work on really figuring out how to define morals, what is moral, why something is moral or immoral, etc.
We’d get a lot farther than where we are, which is “god exists! no he doesn’t! yes he does!”
Your belief in god obstructs the study/philosophy/consideration of morals. My nonbelief does not. Belief in god means you say “Well, thats the answer, God did it.” My nonbelief means I say, “Well, it wasn’t God, so lets keep trying to figure out what it was/is.”
Now, multiply that difference by every person on earth, for every generation ever. Imagine how far along we would be in ethics, or science, or medicine - if not for the billions of people for thousands of generations claiming everything to be the work of a supernatural Sky Wizard.
THAT’S a part of why it matters what other people believe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
But rights aren’t the only thing this way. Belief in anything intangible necessitates a god. Without him there can be no such real things as beauty or love or good or bad or anything worth living for. There are only chemical reactions in your brain you label as love or morals. ANY value judgment is relative without god and not a real thing.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than evidence you’ve been ignoring me and continue make up whatever you want. Let me try to clear some things up. No, I am not a typical Christian. You see, my logic and reasoning flow backwards from most religious people (as I mentioned earlier I’m not religious, though you apparently ignored me). I don’t believe in morals because god said so. First and foremost I came to believe in the universality of right and wrong. From there I had to acknowledge the necessity of a god. I never claimed any of the things you attribute to me in your last paragraph.
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
The above musings appear to be completely illogical.
Beauty, love, good, bad ARE all relative terms. How does God remove relativity from something like “beautiful”. I think a mountain is beautiful. Other people look at a mountain and say, “meh”. Does God remove the relativity from that observation? I’m confused by your statements.
Love? “Love” is often transient. We fall in and out of love all the time. The only life long love that most of us are acquainted with is love for our family, and the reasons and motivations for that are obvious. How does God factor into that?
“Anything worth living for”? What are you talking about? “Worth living for” is absolutely “relative”. What does God have to do with it? So an Atheist has nothing worth living for? I’m sure we could find a bunch that would vehemently disagree.
Rights ARE an invention of man. Name one “right” that was alleged to be a decree of God that did not exist in some form or another before such proclamation. Take the edict against killing for example. Do you not think man attempted to refrain from killing each other prior? Do you not think man attempted to redress killing and such? Was “thou shalt not kill” a novel concept? It wasn’t.
You can’t have a tribe, a village, a city, an empire, without social constructs and rules. And those constructs and rules are organic and dynamic. Those constructs are rules are ever-evolving. We still struggle with “rights” to this day - homosexual marriage for instance.
Continuing, on the one hand, you say relative observations and emotions are completely relative without God, and on the other, you do not believe in morality “just because God said so”. This is completely illogical. On one hand, you say certain things do not exist without God, and in the next breath you proclaim that morality does not exist because of God. Illogical.
Finally, it is not true that “everyone believes in the supernatural”. Where did you get that from?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
But rights aren’t the only thing this way. Belief in anything intangible necessitates a god. Without him there can be no such real things as beauty or love or good or bad or anything worth living for. There are only chemical reactions in your brain you label as love or morals. ANY value judgment is relative without god and not a real thing.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than evidence you’ve been ignoring me and continue make up whatever you want. Let me try to clear some things up. No I am not a typical Christian. You see my logic and reasoning flow backwards from most religious people (as I mentioned earlier I’m not religious, though you apparently ignored me). I don’t believe in morals because god said so. First and foremost I came to believe in the universality of wright and wrong. From there I had to acknowledge the necessity of a god. I never claimed any of the things you attribute to me in your last paragraph.
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural if you will. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
Excellent Post.
[/quote]
WHAT??!!
Read my reply and feel free to respond.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
[/quote]
How society started applying them is where they come from. But, you may have a point here. Perhaps ‘rights’ are just a social construct, and not a natural, untenable fact of nature.
They arenâ??t a fact of nature, because you refuse to even define them.
No, it doesn’t. The existence of the thing labeled “love”, which represents a concept which includes a chemical reaction in a persons brain, does not necessitate a god, a shaman, a cthulhu, a sky wizard, a Great Potato, or anything else supernatural.
[/quote]
No, even the concept is nothing but a chemical reaction. At the base of every value assignment is the supernatural. Take ownership. Ownership in and of itself is non-scientific, irrational, mumbo-jumbo. The idea that a fluctuating group of atoms has some mystical link we call ownership to another fluctuating group of atoms.
Without the supernatural you are left with the basic physics of science. Beauty, right, wrong, ownership, rights, and on and on and on do not exist. They cannot be defined. For example â??evilâ?? is not a real thing.
No, without the supernatural you can only define these terms not only relatively, but constrained the physical aspects of it. This things donâ??t even exist without it.
No, now you just call god a different name. Beauty. Otherwise explain what beauty is.
First, I just do believe in right and wrong, canâ??t explain it. Call it faith. The Nazis were universally bad.
Second, because absolute right and wrong can only be define by the non-physical. If they exist, the non-physical exists.
[quote]
[quote]
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
Actually, as per this discussion, I’m starting to question the “natural rights” of man. Not because it would necessitate a god, though (it wouldnt).
Believing in “natural rights/love/beauty” as a supernatural entity (existing outside of any relationship to anything else in the universe) does not necessitate that another supernatural entity (sky wizard/god) exists - only that the former does.[/quote]
No, it doesnâ??t necessitate a sky wizard, believing natural rights/love/beauty exist in and of themselves is a sky wizard.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yeah, I cant see how Christian beliefs affect others, especially me.
Except that I’m considered rude if I dont say “God bless you” when someone sneezes.
Except that “In God we trust” is printed on the money I use.
Except that my gay friends are discriminated against, as per biblical teaching.
Except that I had to say “One nation, under God” every time I recited the pledge of allegiance growing up
Except that many businesses are not open or close early on sunday - thanks to religious tradition.
Except that progress in fields such as medicine are still being slowed by the religious right.
…yup. Can’t imagine why I’d care.[/quote]
Maybe you need to worry more about your self, than minutia. The majority of American’s are Christian.
I will accept a strait democratic vote on those things you take exception to. If people vote to take ‘God’ out of the pledge or the money or what ever, I will accept that, if they want to keep it would you agree to that? I think that’s fair.
How often to you recite the pledge or read anything other than the numbers on money anyway?
If I sneeze and you don’t say shit, I don’t care.
I would be amused though if you said ‘nothing bless you’.[/quote]
I can deal with leaving the sayings where they are , I do how ever think it wrong that policy is based on religion, That policy controls our lives so Religion is controlling you and I regardless of weather you believe the Religion to be fact or fiction
[quote]Valor wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
I mean, I can see where a Christian is coming from, for instance, if you tell him he’s a dumbass for believing in a sky wizard. Conversely, I can see how an atheist might be put off by being reprimanded and told he’s going to hell.[/quote]
This is the crux of it. Some religious people assert that their particular religion is better, truer, the only one. And people who believe differently are either going to hell and/or are just shit-outta-luck as far as enlightenment is concerned. (Or “Saved”, to use a christian vernacular) What if everyone is SUPPOSED to be guided by their own heart and mind, and leave everyone else out of it?[/quote]
Islam is a complete and total force for destruction and hate. It cannot be denied.[/quote]
Maybe Islam has a larger slice of the pie that equals our West Burro Baptist Church , but Christianity has it’s share of Whackos
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not talking about how society started applying them, I’m talking about justification and where they derive from. Without a god, the only thing that can be said for rights is that they are the invention of man and as such are not universal. All is relative and hence rights are in no way natural.
But rights aren’t the only thing this way. Belief in anything intangible necessitates a god. Without him there can be no such real things as beauty or love or good or bad or anything worth living for. There are only chemical reactions in your brain you label as love or morals. ANY value judgment is relative without god and not a real thing.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than evidence you’ve been ignoring me and continue make up whatever you want. Let me try to clear some things up. No, I am not a typical Christian. You see, my logic and reasoning flow backwards from most religious people (as I mentioned earlier I’m not religious, though you apparently ignored me). I don’t believe in morals because god said so. First and foremost I came to believe in the universality of right and wrong. From there I had to acknowledge the necessity of a god. I never claimed any of the things you attribute to me in your last paragraph.
But everyone believes in something(s) supernatural. You for example believe in some form of universal morality if you do in fact believe in the natural rights of man. Regardless of whether you accept that there can be no such thing without the supernatural, your belief in them alone is enough. There is no evidence to support them, they cannot be proved, but you just somehow know that they exist. That is really the same thing as god in my book.[/quote]
The above musings appear to be completely illogical.
Beauty, love, good, bad ARE all relative terms. How does God remove relativity from something like “beautiful”. I think a mountain is beautiful. Other people look at a mountain and say, “meh”. Does God remove the relativity from that observation? I’m confused by your statements.
[/quote]
Actually, being universal would mean that individual opinions donâ??t matter and donâ??t change the inherent nature of something. Think more along the lines of â??motherhood is beautifulâ??. Iâ??m claiming it is whether you agree or not because there is an inherent value to motherhood.
It depends on what you mean by love. If you just think love is a chemical reaction in your brain that is probably the result of the evolutionary process to help people survive, god isnâ??t necessary. If however, you think love the concept is a real thing, you are believing in something mystical. God doesnâ??t factor into, god is inherent to the definition.
Worth living for was my evaluation.
And a proper positive atheist must believe himself a chemical reaction and incapable of assigning worth to anything.
I just donâ??t think most atheists are as atheist as they think. Most have faith in something.
If rights are assigned and given then natural rights donâ??t exist. And that is fine, you can believe that, but that isnâ??t what I was discussing.
If rights are granted by society, society has the right to take them away. Believing in universal rights means believing that they are not a product of society. You donâ??t have to believe in them, but that is the premise I was working from.
No, you didnâ??t follow my reasoning. I say certain things donâ??t exist without god and I say I donâ??t believe in morals because god said so. You miss quoted me. What I actually said was not contradictory. Discussing the flow and order of the universe and the flow of how I arrived at beliefs are 2 different things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, even the concept is nothing but a chemical reaction. At the base of every value assignment is the supernatural. Take ownership. Ownership in and of itself is non-scientific, irrational, mumbo-jumbo. The idea that a fluctuating group of atoms has some mystical link we call ownership to another fluctuating group of atoms.
Without the supernatural you are left with the basic physics of science. Beauty, right, wrong, ownership, rights, and on and on and on do not exist. They cannot be defined. For example “evil” is not a real thing.
[quote]
You’re making a good case for the assertion that inherent value does not exist.
Not making a good case for God Wizard (I’m working on my religious tolerance).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m curious for those that do not believe in a creator how do you explain nature? What I mean is for example some people believe in the cell theory/evolution therefore trees came from an original cell and so on and so forth. Is this how everyone feels (excluding those who believe in creation of course)?
If the above is the case then where did the original cell come from? I’m actually very curious as to people’s thoughts on this and am not at all interested in arguing.
Chris [/quote]
I don’t know. I can’t explain nature. Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m just curious. Some people wonder how life began, some people wonder if there’s life in space, and some people don’t care.
That’s really all I was getting at. For me personally I have a had time with the origin of life being from a single cell. That’s me and I am certainly not an authority on the matter (not that there really is one).
How about a different question pertaining to the origin of life for anyone. I have been wondering for a while now why if all life came from a single cell why that cell would need to evolve and why would that cell evolve so some organisms became predators and others prey? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Chris
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, even the concept is nothing but a chemical reaction. At the base of every value assignment is the supernatural. Take ownership. Ownership in and of itself is non-scientific, irrational, mumbo-jumbo. The idea that a fluctuating group of atoms has some mystical link we call ownership to another fluctuating group of atoms.
Without the supernatural you are left with the basic physics of science. Beauty, right, wrong, ownership, rights, and on and on and on do not exist. They cannot be defined. For example “evil” is not a real thing.
I’m aware of that. Trust me, I’ve walked down that road.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, DD, you’re comparing a “belief” in something reasonably defensible with a “belief” in something ridiculous.
For example, I’ve never seen an electron, nor could I ‘prove’ that electrons exist. But since the atom model is the best explanation we seem to have for explaining how things work at that level, I “believe” in electrons.
However, I dont believe in leprechauns. I’ve also never seen leprechauns, I also could not ‘prove’ that they exist.
But it would be quite stupid for someone to say “How is it you can believe in electrons but not leprechauns?”[/quote]
Funny I don’t believe in electrons. I conditionally accept them as a matter of practicality.
But I and many people think the best explanation for existence itself is a god. I will also change my view if a better alternative theory becomes available.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m aware of that. Trust me, I’ve walked down that road.[/quote]
I’m not saying this to be rude or argumentative, but some of the things you say dont make sense.
You’re aware that you’re making a case against inherent values. You’ve “walked down the road” of not believing in inherent values.
But, somehow, you made a U turn on that road and now you believe in them, and, as a result, believe in the necessity of a God.
Yet you’re back to making arguments against what you currently believe?