Home › Forums › Philosophy › Atheism Quarterdeck: Aspiring Christian Apologists Welcome
This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Sandals 4 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I am just an open minded man who craves knowledge and understanding but admits ignorance as there is no shame in not knowing and understanding everything discussed here…believe it or not I am crash coursing and reading as I go..Drawing as I said from the vast gained knowledge acquired and assembled for us to draw from by the whole of online humanity… This alone Is something no other animal so far is capable of doing…I am not college ejumacated ha ha…I chime in at the risk of being wrong or showing a total lack of understanding, because This is my self educational method…I also have attempted to set my religious beliefs aside as much as possible while contributing..I still have beliefs, about faith but making a conscious effort not to express them, or make my statements reliant on them…Morals if derived from only evolution is an interesting and different concept to me..So I read on…
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Yeah Harpomason, I see what you say.
I think homo sapien has the most complex brain on Earth, it’s capacity for a rich experience is certainly greater than that of a reptile or bird, but how much? You made some parallels ‘tween us and animals but did them no flattery for sure. I wouldn’t rule out many of the features our brain has compared to a bunny or a whale. Especially other mammals are so similar, they may indeed be thinking abstractly or contemplating their own mortality. If a dolphin had evolved an opposable thumb, that f~~~er would have invented a battery and written a poem by now. Right?
My point is that we are pretty vain animals. We invented plumbing and bathe daily but we’re disgusting (by our standards) without our technology.
Your points on the leaps and bounds of evolution got me thinking. Honestly, I think they found out that it can speed up a bit more than previously thought.
But you do make a good point. Despite our views of religion, Evolution does have a black curtain over our latest attributes/history. Speech, art and literacy only recently became possible, all happening in the last million years for sure. This is some of my inherent superstition/speculation so don’t kill me lol. If they find out that speech/literacy/art all show up 75,000 years ago during that bottleneck that decreased our species down to a few hundred people. I don’t know man, and it’s unscientific for sure, but to me its suspicious when a super volcano nearly extincts an entire species, and the survivors all happen to speak and think artistically. Total hogwash IMO to think evolution had ANY help but if there was intelligent intervention in evolution, it was extra terrestrial. This may sound like a joke and I even thinks its funny but its the only answer. Gods arent real, Im sorry, and if there is more than one “god” it breeds, making it a species, not a god. If they are out there and happen to stop by 80,000 years ago to do us a solid by rewriting some DNA, it’s going to show up in the lab and fossil record eventually. I doubt it, I just think it would be a great movie or X-Files episode lol.
Beware Wrote;
Unintelligent ‘Designs’ etc…
Eat and breathe out of the same hole, causes children by the 1000’s to die every year
We sleep 1/3 of our life away.
We require food and water daily and have to pee/poop daily. It gets old after about 20 years.
Hearing and Vision is limited to extremely narrow slice of what is actually there. Smell, touch and taste could all be better to say least. We could actually use a few more senses to be honest.
Anthropomorphic tendency (vanity) Used to be evolutionary advantageous (promoted civility), now it prevents progress in every science. Its become yet another out grown limb.
Our teeth decay, get infected, fall out and generally fail to help us digest food. This would kill us off at a young age, before we invented Denistry.
Our knees also suck because they were evolved for being on all fours, not bipedal locomotion.
A lot could be said about hormones, neural transmitters, parts of the brain and their % of influence. It’s a zoo to be frank. It gave rise to consciousness which is peculiar (coming biasedly from one who has one) but in general, it’s a work in progress, hopefully.
We seem to be incredibly prone to pride, shame and hate which make no sense in a causal framework absent of freewill. This has more to do with societies failure to educate people properly about the human condition instead of capitalizing on it. We could probably cut violence in half if this was taught in school. It should be since it’s published fact by doctors.
We pretty much live long enough to f~~~ and think only of that. Once that mission is accomplished, its down hill. Being a celibate mgtow, I can say it’s over rated. I live for artistic expression and amusement. That’s the meaning IN my life, there is no meaning TO life.
Wow That is all true and A testament to your humility and understanding of your own mortality…Brother these are sobering facts that I can relate to because I cannot eat properly until I get a full set of upper dentures…I have no insurance or savings…I just wake every morning and tell myself there are no problems only solutions and think of others worse off than myself…Artistic expression Is my motivation also, in the form of as many pages as I can write before I die…The only inheritance I can expect to leave my yet to be conceived grandchildren are my words… At 52 I have no desire to procreate again, but would like to travel the country on two wheels writing and riding like a madman till the end….I am in good shape but for my teeth..This is the meaning of my life. To be as prolific in miles and words as my remaining time of life permits…Sad bucket list? Teeth, motorcycle, explore and write…
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
I need to apologize to Exsliven and John Doe. The comment about meth addiction was too much. I was aiming for a synonym more like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder since y’all seem to think yourself into a corner. I hope like hell y’all aren’t literally using drugs…mmm kay. My bad, hope you are still mildly offended by the OCD accusation.
I think I suffer from a kind of OCD myself called Spartanism. I rearrange my condo a lot and throw s~~~ away that I don’t need. Its only a minor affliction though. If you are suffering from drug addiction or alcoholism then AA is right up your allies because you both love anthropomorphic thinking. The 12 steps are filled with that. If you become an atheist, hit a Freethinkers/Atheist AA Meeting where they don’t talk about god. Helped me a lot when I quit drinking. But again, sorry, that was below the belt.
I do love all the comments made and am glad we can all be here, together as men, to exchanges thoughts. Have a great MGTOW day
Beware Wrote;
Total hogwash IMO to think evolution had ANY help but if there was intelligent intervention in evolution, it was extra terrestrial. This may sound like a joke and I even thinks its funny but its the only answer. Gods arent real, Im sorry, and if there is more than one “god” it breeds, making it a species, not a god. If they are out there and happen to stop by 80,000 years ago to do us a solid by rewriting some DNA, it’s going to show up in the lab and fossil record eventually. I doubt it, I just think it would be a great movie or X-Files episode lol.
Ironic That I also had similar thoughts and found humor in them..The Movie shows That super evolved humans are making 100,ooo year round trips to set it all up again, so that we may destroy it over and over…They set us back to the stone age make a few genetic tweaks and fly away for another 100,000 years…Complete with witnessed miracles and stories to pass down…Makes me laugh…
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
That sucks Harpo. Blending and a lot knife cutting of food to make sure you get proper nutrients I imagine. Im with you on the artistic expression. I waste quite a bit of time and money on oil painting. Im pretty ambivalent about writing. On the one hand, Im pretty good at it, on the other I dont like fiction much and lack the credentials to publish a best selling non-fiction. I dont write journals anymore because the ones I did write during deployment and post deployment were grim and to exposing of my real thoughts. I had to go back and cut a lot of pages out for fear they would be read by someone.
I have to also relate to riding a two wheeler. Im a scooter dealer and repair/service/sell them everyday. Nothing compares the bliss felt on two wheels; freedom. I drive a scooter but it hauls ass and I live in the inner city so its perfect. Just turn up my ipod, rock out and and take corners as fast and as tilted as I can. 🙂
All I can say as a 29 year old, is that money and material possessions aren’t the wealth of our experience, it’s experience itself that isn’t quantifiable. I wouldn’t trade my thoughts or subjective experience for 1 million bucks or the perfect motorcycle ride. Some may think I’m an insensitive bully here but I have a sensitive and artsy side. The movie Interstellar for instance, I have the DVD and watch it a lot. I like it because it makes me tear up literally. I cry a little in a way that isn’t tears of joy or sorrow, it’s a different emotion that invokes the wet bodily response. I feel a deep concern for the well-being of the species, always have. I used to drink because the state of affairs was so grim because of religion, even slit my throat because of it while very drunk. I barely survived, woke up ten days later stitched up. I haven’t drank a drop since then. Happy now and less emotionally hung on the state of human affairs.
Could be worse, we could already be dead or living in a concentration camp.
Frank, you totally “get” it. You’re right, causal determinism doesn’t mean we can’t lock up killers, also you’re right, we have to make the best of ourselves and strive for knowledge and progress even if we’re automated. You completely understand, have you been reading Sam Harris? hehehe I love that guy!
I hadn’t read Harris when I posted that, but I was aware of his work and just today starting reading ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’. I’ve read Dawkins ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ probably 20 years ago, and Christopher Hitchens. And Ayn Rand, and Richard Feynman, among many others. ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ is essentially a refutation of intelligent design (ID). Incidentally, I live in a State abutting the one where the ‘Creation Museum’ resides! Google that one, you’ll love it. I highly recommend the Ark Encounter. Actually, I haven’t actually visited it.
I concur with your thoughts on intelligent design, complexity doesn’t prove a creator. Also, not only is most of our DNA non-coding, much of it is shared with other species. You can actually estimate how long ago we had a common ancestor using genetics. Since micro-evolution has already been proved, what you now see is a weakened argument, e.g. God directed evolution of species — an attempt to be more compatible with facts and reality.
FRANK you’re going to love “letter to a Christian nation.” I think I already posted my favorite quote from there. It squashes the “Religion makes people moral” argument in one sentence; how people use their own moral standards to establish parts of the Bible as their moral standard. Page 49<span style=”line-height: 1.5;”>: </span>
Sam Harris (Phd in Neurology and Bachelors in Philosophy) His book: The Moral Landscape
Pg 4. “Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim alegebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. …I will argue that morality be considered an undeveloped branch of Science.”
Page 158-159:
“While the ultimate relationship between consciousness and matter has not been settled, any naive conception of a soul can now be jettisoned on account of the mind’s obvious dependancy upon the brain. The idea that there might be an immortal soul capable of reasoning, feeling love, remembering life events, etc., all the while being metaphysically independant of the brain, seems untenable given that damage to the relevant neural circuits obliterates these capacities in a living person. Does the soul of a person suffering from total aphasia (loss of language ability) still speak and think fluently? This is rather like asking whether the soul of a diabetic produces abundant insulin. The specific character of the mind’s dependency on the brain also suggests that there cannot be a unified self at work in each of us. There are simply too many separable components to the human mind, each susceptible to independent disruption– for there to be a single entity to stand as rider to the horse.”
I specifically love that quote. It leads straight into his next two books. In his book “Freewill” he makes clear it doesnt exist. Then he wrote “Waking Up; A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion”
Each builds upon the other. Religion is unreasonable and immoral, driven home in first two books. Next, shows that morality is a neglected science and provides a basis for objective morality (The Moral Landscape). Then he indisputably and amazingly decapitates the illusion of freewill in a book that can read in one day.
I started reading all of Chris Hitchens after that. Hitchens has richer substance as well as wit, charm and humor. I like Harris because he’s no bulls~~~, cuts to core. He exposes fallacoius reasoning like a robot building a machine. Analyzing, step by step. No fluff or irrelevant personal anecdotes.
Frank one, I had a post but deleted it by accident. I will get back to your points. I am too lazy to go backwards. So I will respond to Laminae next and come back to you when I am off work.
A degree doesn’t prove s~~~ and hasn’t in 20 years!
Then stop talking about Sam Harris.
Revealing our anthropomorphic flaw in human reasoning, disposes of any notion of any god, period.
And one would have to disprove all human reasoning itself since it came from anthropomorphic minds. To say one is flawed only means they do not know what is right. If they do not know what is right they are still subject to belief. You can “bash” and anthropomorphic Diety/Dieties all you want but at the end of the day you are going to have to criticize yourself too as an anthropomorphic being.
Determinism is truth as well as evolution. Freewill is not real. These are the facts people, verified by dozens of scientists and neurologists.
You are not beating a dead horse, you are beating a mound of dirt you think is a dead horse. Your thinking is so delusionally circular and irrational I doubt you would be able to correctly acknowledge a dead horse.
-Determinism is not proven, and cannot be proven. It is a theory, that is all.
-Even if it was proven it does not cancel free will. As a matter of fact it would have to create it. Why? Because as a human being I am eventually going to come across two or more equal variables I would have to react to. When the “universe” (as you would have to put it) puts me in that position I would have to choose. If I do not choose how to react to those equal variables, then I would cease to react and determinism would become bunk. This situation would have to happen due to quantum mechanics making all things possible. And on top of that those two or more variables, I would be forced to react to cannot cancel eachother out because A) it would be as if they never existed and B) it would violate the law of thermodynamics.
I trust the men in lab coats over scripture written by psychopathic desert dwellers millenniums ago, sorry.
Frank one, I had a post but deleted it by accident. I will get back to your points. I don’t have the time to go backwards. So I will respond to Laminae next and come back to you when I am off work.
A degree doesn’t prove s~~~ and hasn’t in 20 years!
Then stop talking about Sam Harris.
Revealing our anthropomorphic flaw in human reasoning, disposes of any notion of any god, period.
And one would have to disprove all human reasoning itself since it came from anthropomorphic minds. To say one is flawed only means they do not know what is right. If they do not know what is right they are still subject to belief. You can “bash” and anthropomorphic Diety/Dieties all you want but at the end of the day you are going to have to criticize yourself too as an anthropomorphic being.
Determinism is truth as well as evolution. Freewill is not real. These are the facts people, verified by dozens of scientists and neurologists.
You are not beating a dead horse, you are beating a mound of dirt you think is a dead horse. Your thinking is so delusionally circular and irrational I doubt you would be able to correctly acknowledge a dead horse.
-Determinism is not proven, and cannot be proven. It is a theory, that is all.
-Even if it was proven it does not cancel free will. As a matter of fact it would have to create it. Why? Because as a human being I am eventually going to come across two or more equal variables I would have to react to. When the “universe” (as you would have to put it) puts me in that position I would have to choose. If I do not choose how to react to those equal variables, then I would cease to react and determinism would become bunk. This situation would have to happen due to quantum mechanics making all things possible. And on top of that those two or more variables, I would be forced to react to cannot cancel eachother out because A) it would be as if they never existed and B) it would violate the law of thermodynamics.
I trust the men in lab coats over scripture written by psychopathic desert dwellers millenniums ago, sorry.
You can’t be logical and do this, after all you said nothing with anthropomorphic qualities can lead one to truth. Also, quite obviously, this makes you a man of faith.
If you don’t think evolution (the proof that complex s~~~ needs no designer)
Evolution is a theory of diversity: look it up. You are full blown making stuff up. It does not address the problems of a root source of life or creation itself. It is a faulty theory that lacks evidence and has nothing to do whether a God exists or not. It is a theory about diversity. Common questions one might ask are: Why are apes still around if we evolved from them? Why do some species evolve and others don’t? Why are the species that are not evolving still alive?
Add a fragmented, and contradictory, fossil record in and it is prove bunk on its own standards.
It is the ORDER of the universe that gives science any credibility, if the universe didn’t adhere to order you couldn’t even setup a simple control and variable experiment.
What, so the ability to setup an experiment is what defines order? So awareness is required for order? So why couldn’t there be a supreme consciousness?
God doesn’t seem to intervene for s~~~, some stupid bitch whines about her husband cheating on her, then they go to marriage counseling and the poor sap sticks with it. Meanwhile, some third world s~~~ hole, some poor kid prays for his sibling to not die of any number of waterborne illnesses, then watches them die anyway.
Yeah because people like the first lady robbed the poor in the second group of any ability to acquire clean water. At the end of the day we are responsible for eachother, as we are made in the image of God. Can we deny this? Yes. A God forcing people to do good would be a tyrant like any other. So on one hand if people were forced to do Good, they would curse God for “forcing” them. If God gave man a choice, they would still curse him for their own evils. Either way people would be cursing God. But technically they could not curse him in the first example, as they would have no choice. But this falls in line with a deterministic view, which would inhibit free will altogether. If this were the case then either we would have no value, simply because we are deterministic. Or God would be a tyrant. Which would be senseless because it would be like saying one is tyrant for moving rocks about.
I will go further and say we are no more important than other animals
If we are not more important than animals, than we cannot deem people wrong for behaving like them. However if they do not behave like animals, it would mean that they are acting wrongly and acting “less than” an animal. Where in the animal kingdom can one animal be judged for acting like less of an animal than another?
Can we act like animals? Yes. Do we have the potential to move past it? Yes.
In regards to the “evolution” example with the foxes: it proves evolution pointless. If diversity is not necessary for survival than diversity cannot be the root cause of the existence of certain species. The foxes lived fine before they “evolved”. The lived fine after. Either way the fox exists. And one has not evolved past being a fox, so in a sense a fox always stays a fox. What leap forward?
Sorry to skip back to you Frankone, I am replying as I go. I might not get to your first post (due to work) today. I will respond, and if I don’t then remind me.
My last post largely addressed this — order does not require a designer. I can add toxins slowly to a bacteria culture and they may evolve to withstand it. If I add heat to a chemical reactor, I can make more complex molecules from simpler ones.
This is a contradictory example, as you said there is no designer necessary but you yourself designed the bacteria. This example clearly states how an intelligent designer (you) have changed the bacteria.
And I’ve known people with a LOT more scientific training than I’ve got (research scientists) who believe in various religions. I will say, though, the concentration of skeptics in my field is MUCH higher than the general population, probably 50%.
All you are pointing too is how one can be “rational” and a “believer.” That is assuming that all scientists are rational because they use the scientific method (according to your standards of reason).
Faith does not contradict science. And vice versa. I don’t know why athiests always have to break this down to an “either/or”.
Unintelligent ‘Designs’ etc… Eat and breathe out of the same hole, causes children by the 1000’s to die every year We sleep 1/3 of our life away. We require food and water daily and have to pee/poop daily. It gets old after about 20 years. Hearing and Vision is limited to extremely narrow slice of what is actually there. Smell, touch and taste could all be better to say least. We could actually use a few more senses to be honest. Anthropomorphic tendency (vanity) Used to be evolutionary advantageous (promoted civility), now it prevents progress in every science. Its become yet another out grown limb. Our teeth decay, get infected, fall out and generally fail to help us digest food. This would kill us off at a young age, before we invented Denistry. Our knees also suck because they were evolved for being on all fours, not bipedal locomotion.
And one can argue that all these things promote life too. Take for example the bipedal issue: We can run longer distances
than anyother animal. We are also able to see further (height). And four legged creatures also get arthritis. You reason
is senseless. You will blame having two legs for arthritis but ignore cases of animals with four legs having it (dogs for
example). You pull stuff out of thin air. You can point out the deficiencies in anything but it does
not solve the problem of good (existence). Just admit it. You hate God. I am not going to do anything about it.
Neither can anyone else on this forum. Just admit it. You hate God. You reasoning is like a child who is trying to
rationalize getting anything he wants. If there is no God you have no accountability. After all if all people are selfish,
according to you, then that means by default you are selfish and you are twisting the truth to your own benefit. Grow up.I live for artistic expression and amusement. That’s the meaning IN my life, there is no meaning TO life.
If there is no meaning to life, then by default you are saying that your joy has no meaning. In a sense it is empty,
and somewhat pointless. Or one can say you have no joy, which would be the more accurate of the two. And if there is no
meaning, then why avoid women? After all there is not they can say or do that should affect you or anyone else.
Also there is no point in proving your personal philsophy either, since that (according to you) is meanlingless.
So why be angry with someone different than you? After all,
everything I say is meaningless. But wait, I forgot you are also saying you are meaningless. So how do you expect anyone
to take you seriously? I bet you hate yourself don’t you? You would have to, otherwise you are a hypocrite.This is a real question: If life has no meaning why should anyone value what you have to say?
I perceive that I make choices and they have consequences, and I have no way to prove otherwise (to prove my choices are illusory and have already been made), but that doesn’t mean the future is or is not pre-ordained. Classical physics is deterministic; quantum mechanics is probabilistic. In principal, if you knew the conditions of all your neurons and the external environment, the question becomes could your future actions be calculated exactly? Are quantum fluctuations random or deterministic? It all becomes very complicated;
If one is a true agnostic, then one would have to hold science into accountability. Why? Because it does not solve everything nor is there evidence of it being capable too.
I didn’t mean to state the obvious, but to express that on an individual basis, we’re typically born into a religion, adopt it, and typically don’t question it. On a larger scale, nations often change religions for political reasons or as a matter of conquest (the rise of Islam throughout Arabia, introduction of Christianity into colonies across the globe, etc). Or convenience to the leaders — Henry VIII’s fall out with Roman Catholicism and adoption of Protestantism — I’ll have my divorce with Catherine, or else. Of course, there were other political considerations there too.
As to the first point, people convert all the time. Many muslims and jews do not for fear of persecution. Don’t believe me? Google it. As to your second point, you are not point out how religion is unnecessary but rather how people change their beliefs for their own personal pleasures. I don’t see what point you have, because then you would have to explain away the beliefs of people who ran away from personal pleasures because of a faith they barely knew (Francis of Assissi is obvious example.)
But I can certainly question why the sons and daughters of the many Christian evangelists I’ve known don’t seem to have a personal revelation to worship Allah. And I can question why the sons and daughters of Hasidic Jews aren’t converting to Christianity.
There are stories of Muslims converting to Christianity because of “revelations”. In regards to vice versa, Islam is a faith that does not require personal revelation but rather acknowledges linguistics (how artfully the Koran was written) as proof. They are two very separate ideologies and faiths. The view and understanding of the world are very different. In regards to the Jews, many don’t convert because of persecution. There is one rabbi, who on his deathbed written the name of the messiah on a piece of paper. The name was Yeshua or Hebrew for Jesus. I am under time restraints, so I cannot look this up but I am sure you can find it online quickly.
I regards to the “vengeful” God of the old testament, people were brutal back then. All they understood was brutality or a full belly. “They had hearts of stone” as the New testament points out. People like that cannot be reasoned with. Many of the pagans sacrificed there own children or practiced ritual cannibalism. Do you think an “I love you, don’t treat your brothers that way” approach would have worked?
I would continue, but I have to go. I will respond when I have the time. In short, your arguments are a biased and twisted version of evidence which has not been quoted in context.
FRANK you’re going to love “letter to a Christian nation.” I think I already posted my favorite quote from there. It squashes the “Religion makes people moral” argument in one sentence; how people use their own moral standards to establish parts of the Bible as their moral standard.
I read it in its entirety on my tablet & enjoyed it. I love my tablet & downloading books quickly to it with Google Drive. It’s wonderful how cheap this technology has become.
I’m kind of a pragmatist on this one. There are countries that are only nominally religious (e.g. Japan, Denmark). It seems to me, if morality requires religiousity, then rapists and murderers would be running rampant in these modern-day Sodom and Gomorrahs. Of course, statistics indicate, their crime rates, are lower than in the good ‘ole U.S. of A. How come God hasn’t rained hellfire down on San Francisco or at least Haight-Ashbury or has He mellowed out, toked on some weed, and become politically correct since the New Testament was released (or, more accurately, voted on in councils of Churchmen to determine which Books were the Word of God).
As for Harris’s education, it seems to be promoted (argument from authority), a bit of a turn-off for me as I view argument from authority as fallacious.. Even though I do agree with the author pretty much 100% in ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’. I already know I am going to have some disagreement with his certainty about causal determinism. To me, one’s conclusions on causal determinism don’t matter in your religious choice (aside from it already being made if you believe in it, haha). That is to say, there have been Christians who believed in determinism and others who believed in free will. Also, many great scientists were religious (take Newton; he fiddled with alchemy and worked more in religion than mechanics/science). So while I find rationalism inconsistent with religion, many others, do not.
As for the Bible, one question I have is why God is so fickle? The New Testament replaces the old? Same for Islam, newer contradictory statements supercede old (a concept called abrogation). I also question how the Abrahamic God can be so immoral by human standards (google God’s body count), and yet, the Bible be considered authoritative on morality.
Lost posts: I had this happen when I tried to include a URL. I did have a question to KeyMaster: Can you add a capability where it first saves your message as a cookie when you hit submit, and only after reading message back (after saving), to confirm post ‘took’, clears said cookie? Then if I repost and cookie exists, paste my previous message from the cookie into the body? Or use a file on server instead of cookie? In my case message was lost because of including a URL in the body but that’s the only time it happened. I realize writing that may take a lot of time & I already appreciate what you’ve done here.
I’m skeptical we can have an objective or scientific morality. Ayn Rand attempted it as did other philosophers. Ultimately morality depends on values. It’s the is/ought argument. At the same time, I do believe we can have morality without religion, because, well, we do in many countries. A lot of morality is attained from socialization; man, having to live with other men to live in civilization, has had to adopt certain rules (no killing, no stealing, etc). We are taught these rules growing up, whether in a religious family or not. I’m not characterizing these rules as scientific, but pragmatic. Some societies may be polygamous; others may consider polygamy immoral. The rules also change with time. Duelling used to be a civilized way to handle disputes.
Why are apes still around if we evolved from them? Why do some species evolve and others don’t? Why are the species that are not evolving still alive?
I cant believe the s~~~ Im reading. I think you’re right John, the Earth is young, the firmamnet opened up and flooded the Earth. Now with no water layer in the atmosphere we get cancer, die young, and are only 6 feet tall. Before, we lived hundreds of years, were 9 feet tall and fought dinosaurs.
It is a faulty theory that lacks evidence and has nothing to do whether a God exists or not.
Everytime you allow people to know you dont believe in evolution, you make a complete asshat of yourself. Its not faulty, its f~~~ing proven beyond question, period! Even Christians agreed, and the f~~~ing Pope 20 years ago! It’s alao extremely relevant since for the firat time in the world, we showed ourselves that complex life and variety comes from simpler forms, not Bog!
John, I think its time you come clean. I wont stand here and debate with a child or someone who is mentally handicapped. You’ve been deceiving us and its obvious. Either admit you’ve lied about your education and age or admit you seriously do have a mental handicap. You’re still our bro here but you’re peddling asinine questions people asked 50 years ago. You seemed to have completely misunderstood anthropomorphic tendancy.
Honestly I hope you get fired from the job you steal time from to post bulls~~~ no one benefits from. Addicted ti thinking people give a ahit about what you post when time after time no one agrees with you.
Ultimately morality depends on values.
Yeah, Harris explains some of these usual concerns voiced from the people skeptical of an objective/scientific morality. Dont “Values” or morals equate to the well-being of conscious creatures? He usually compares the infant science of morality to the scince of medicine. In medicine, the word healthy can mean a lot of things and it can be a grey area. But we know that eating rocks isnt healthy. We know smoking and cheeseburgers will eventually affect health tremendously. These are facts drawn from observation in medicine. There are many levels of health and multiple ways to attain health.
Likewise on “the moral landscape, there are peaks and valleys” many ways to suffer, many ways to comfort. Maybe you are on a moral peak and in order to go higher, you have to descend and reclimb another. This would be like accepting collateral damage in war.
Anyway. Read the book if you like.
John Doe wrote; If we are not more important than animals, than we cannot deem people wrong for behaving like them. However if they do not behave like animals, it would mean that they are acting wrongly and acting “less than” an animal. Where in the animal kingdom can one animal be judged for acting like less of an animal than another?
I need only 5th grade biology textbook to know there are two forms of life on our planet. plant and animal. What are you talking about judging as more than or less than an animal? You sound like someone who once argued with me that humans are not animals..Is that what you think?
John Doe wrote; Can we act like animals? Yes. Do we have the potential to move past it? Yes.
We will always act like animals and no we will never move past acting like what we are..No matter how you act its still a human action and therefore an animal action..
John Doe wrote; In regards to the “evolution” example with the foxes: it proves evolution pointless. If diversity is not necessary for survival than diversity cannot be the root cause of the existence of certain species. The foxes lived fine before they “evolved”. The lived fine after. Either way the fox exists. And one has not evolved past being a fox, so in a sense a fox always stays a fox. What leap forward?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b30_1372049732 Did you even watch the very interesting documentary? To me it proved that dogs came from not only wolves but the coyotes and foxes also.Maybe hyenas and dingos too. Plus we would not have 164 different breads of dogs without human intervention through selective breading.. So no a fox is not always a fox and a wolf does not always remain a wolf, and a coyote does not always stay a coyote. Humans intervened and did something that would not have happened as fast or as assuredly if left to the slow pace of natural evolution.. Mankind Played God with the canine species and created 164 and growing different and varying dog breads. That is most assure a leap that would not have occurred without our help..
It was a woman who argued with me that humans are not animals….how absurd is that?
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
If one is a true agnostic, then one would have to hold science into accountability. Why? Because it does not solve everything nor is there evidence of it being capable too.
I’m facsinated by science and its history. ‘Accountability’ to me is a term more aptly applied to moral actors or people. Even so, scientific inquiry, and our senses, admittedly, have limits. We cannot know whether reality exists or we’re actors in a simulator — I love the movie ‘The Truman Show’. I cannot know if you feel pain like me. There are no analytical solutions to even relatively simple problems of classical mechanics, such as the three body problem. Scientific inquiry is limited to what can be observed with the 5 senses in the here and now. So if you think personal revelation is ‘another way of knowing’, I cannot verify that knowledge with science not can I refute it. Scientific observations are limited to the present. Science is limited to answering ‘how’, not ‘why’. It is amoral; we can apply scientific methods and apply them with technology, to develop a virus that selectively exterminates a race or use it to attempt to cure cancer. Science doesn’t provide a good means of studying one-offs or non-repeatable events. There’s lots of evidence the universe is expanding from one point, but no one on Earth in a white lab coat with a telescope was observing it a million years ago. Were Hitler’s projects to develop superweapons immoral and our Manhatten project moral and just? That isn’t a question for science to answer. BTL: I’ll likely read The Moral Landscape but I’m skeptical a morality can be formed ‘scientifically’.
John Doe wrote:
‘As to the first point, people convert all the time. Many muslims and jews do not for fear of persecution. Don’t believe me? Google it. As to your second point, you are not point out how religion is unnecessary but rather how people change their beliefs for their own personal pleasures. I don’t see what point you have, because then you would have to explain away the beliefs of people who ran away from personal pleasures because of a faith they barely knew (Francis of Assissi is obvious example.)’
The penalty for conversion in many religions is death. Death for apostasy (renunciation of one’s faith). An ancient tradition across a wide swath of religions. Religious toleration throughout much of the Western world is a relatively new innovation. The majority of muslims in numerous countries support the death penalty for apostasy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/ — as ANY GOOD MUSLIM SHOULD. It’s in the Hadith. And good Christians should do similarly, if they’ve read their Bible. Burning of witches, blasphemers, deists, and apostates took place even in England up until a couple hundred years ago. What do you think the inquisition and the systematic conversion of the jews was all about? And a skeptic like me tends to regard some early deists as proto-agnostics who wanted a ‘get out of blasphemy free’ card. Even today, in America, nobody (except maybe me & Beware the Lamiae & a small percent of the population) is going to elect an atheist or agnostic president. Americans don’t trust atheists.
‘There are stories of Muslims converting to Christianity because of “revelations”. In regards to vice versa, Islam is a faith that does not require personal revelation but rather acknowledges linguistics (how artfully the Koran was written) as proof. They are two very separate ideologies and faiths. The view and understanding of the world are very different. In regards to the Jews, many don’t convert because of persecution. There is one rabbi, who on his deathbed written the name of the messiah on a piece of paper. The name was Yeshua or Hebrew for Jesus. I am under time restraints, so I cannot look this up but I am sure you can find it online quickly. I regards to the “vengeful” God of the old testament, people were brutal back then. All they understood was brutality or a full belly. “They had hearts of stone” as the New testament points out. People like that cannot be reasoned with. Many of the pagans sacrificed there own children or practiced ritual cannibalism. Do you think an “I love you, don’t treat your brothers that way” approach would have worked? I would continue, but I have to go. I will respond when I have the time. In short, your arguments are a biased and twisted version of evidence which has not been quoted in context.’
Christianity doesn’t require personal revelation either; many convert when they marry. Most conversions I’ve seen are between denominations (how many angels can dance on a pin = difference between them), as opposed to radical conversions. I would argue precisely the OPPOSITE about Jews; historically they were FORCED to convert under Christendom, the inquisition, and pogroms. That said, there is social pressure NOT to convert because, as a minority, it dilutes their unique cultural identity & you see that in a lot of groups. I like Jews myself, primarily because they don’t proselytize but also because most Jews I’ve met are so intelligent. Most I’ve met are essentially irreligious ‘cultural’ Jews, though I must admit — I’ve never know ultra orthodox or Hasidics (black hat crazies). I am familiar with messianic Judaism too.
When I tried to read the Koran (admittedly, in English) rather than Arabic, in high school, I found it rather unintelligible as a Westerner, without a commentary. So while it may be hypnotizing in Arabic, in my opinion at least, a lot got lost in the translation, and probably much of that is cultural-historical.
Old vs New Testament: Why did God create such brutal people and what changed them? What about ancient religions such as Jainism in India that took non-aggression to any living thing as the highest value? It predates Christianity, granted, it’s been in decline for a very long time. Please be specific about what I’ve said that’s biased and twisted; the history of apostasy in major world religions is to apply the death penalty across a wide swath of time, I just don’t see that as disputable. Read about Theodosius’s persecution of pagans, the inquisition, and apostasy and get back with me.
As for blood sacrifice (typically animals, sometimes humans), it was part of many religions and still is a part today of some. Animal sacrifice was most certainly an important part of Judaism from which Christianity came. And blood sacrifice of Jesus is at the CORE of Christianty ‘I am the lamb of God’. There is certainly human sacrifice in the Old Testament; give me your firstborn, after all… Or Jephtha’s sacrificing his daughter, after God helped him defeat his enemies, that’s some wicked ‘ole Testament shiet there…Why is blood sacrifice required to forgive sins?
I’m just rejoicing Sky Daddy has been toking and listening to Jimmy Buffet & mellowing out of his Old Testament wrath & vengeance & pestilence ways.
John Doe wrote; If we are not more important than animals, than we cannot deem people wrong for behaving like them. However if they do not behave like animals, it would mean that they are acting wrongly and acting “less than” an animal. Where in the animal kingdom can one animal be judged for acting like less of an animal than another?
I need only 5th grade biology textbook to know there are two forms of life on our planet. plant and animal. What are you talking about judging as
Correct. Humans are animals by dictionary definition. But we can’t all become members of Animal House.
Its not faulty, its f~~~ing proven beyond question, period! Even Christians agreed, and the f~~~ing Pope 20 years ago!
Yeah I said all that (in regards to the second sentence), and that is why you cannot hold it into account as a proof for atheism. I don’t have to accept it from argument from authority. It is a theory, not a moral mandate or scientific law. It does not conflict with any belief I, or many others hold, so you cannot say it is because I am bias.
It gives little explanation about the prior criticisms I made. These are just common sense questions. At the end of the day evolution argues that variation is created as necessary for survival. Variation is not necessary at all times. I am not saying things are not related or do not change over time. I am saying that things do not always evolve to a “higher form” nor do they need to. Is there diversity? Yes. Can things interbreed? Yes. Variations occur, but at the end of the day a dog is a dog (etc.) no matter what you call it or how you breed it.
It would be like me conceiving a blonde hair blue eyed Asian kid (I am white) with an Asian woman and say “evolution” caused this. There is diversity, but to say it is mandatory for survival or that “survival of the fittest” defines a species would be incorrect.
If evolution is true, that would require human beings to be subject to it. Why would certain societies collapse then, when physical realities stay the same. Rome should have survived, after all a more primitive man conquered them. If rome “devolved” then we cannot hold evolution as a truth since it would require that not all things evolve.
At the end of the day, the theory of evolution does not explain all life forms. If efficiency is the key to physical survival then hypothetically we would be better off as bacteria, which can withstand extreme temperatures, oxygen deficiencies, etc. Diversity is not required for survival.
Dont “Values” or morals equate to the well-being of conscious creatures?
No, some peoples had sacrificial systems (Aztecs for example) as part of their culture and valued human life differently than we do today. Values are values, quite literally speaking. They are things that people value, that is all. People can value things they know are harmful in one respect but destructive in another. Morals are guidelines in achieving those values. People do not always value the same things, so naturally morals change. One cannot put a formula or objective science as to what people can or should value because many of the things would eventually relate to unseen or abstract ideas. Take for example “honor”, that is a value amongst certain cultures, but one cannot scientifically come to terms in understanding it. Sure an MRI can measure how they “feel”, but last time I checked there are a lot more to people than “feelings”.
The concept of “honor” itself cannot be understood and that is where science fails. Why? It only deals with physical realities. And it is dependent on mathematics and certain formulas require variables that literally have to be “assumed” or “taken out of thin air.” Even the arguments for mathematics do not start with mathematic themselves but with abstract principles such as “precision” through the use of philosophical arguments.
Harris, has given no work (that I am aware of) in regards to science determining morality on objective grounds only. His work always has to revert to a philosophical component or assumption even when interpreting “evidence.”
Evidence is useless without interpretation. So regardless of what “evidence” one has, a philosophical argument or and abstract idea is required to lace it altogether. Science, on its own terms, cannot determine morality. At best it can expose behaviors, but behavior on its own terms does not give credence to or for a morality.
Also, if you are to interpret all existence through the lenses of evolution then morality would have to be constantly changing and ever diverse. If this was the case than there can be no set moral law, but only subjective moral law. However this would be faulty because if moral law was only subjective, than it would be immoral for it to never change. There are always constants. And in this respect, to tie morality and evolution together, would debunk evolution. Why because evolution would eventually have to evolve past itself. If things were always “evolving” than nothing has really changed, but rather stayed the same.
Evolution requires a linear understanding of time, as in there is always progress forward. However, if the same natural occurences were to reoccur in the future as they did in the past than by default the same species will come back into existence. Is it still evolving then? Evolution is under the impression that natural occurrence do not repeat themselves. There is no “higher” life form if the same conditions that created a prior lifeform take place again. If anything this points to a set of constants, that one cannot evolve past.
And because everything is material according to atheist evolutionists, certain ideas must evolve, since ideas themselves are part of physical lifeforms. However, if that was the case then philosophies such as deductivism/cynism/Platonism/etc should still not exist. Even apparent changes in these philosophies for “modern times” do not eliminate core portions of these philosophies.
Honestly I hope you get fired from the job you steal time from to post bulls~~~ no one benefits from. Addicted ti thinking people give a ahit about what you post when time after time no one agrees with you.
Actually I was on break. And with that being said, I don’t need people to agree with me, otherwise its a fallacy of authority. (ie I am not right unless other people say so). Maybe you need a circle jerk, but I don’t.
What are you talking about judging as more than or less than an animal? You sound like someone who once argued with me that humans are not animals..Is that what you think?
If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such? Humans have the potential to go past base animal desires, in this respect we are not animals simply because animals cannot do this. They follow appetite. Humans have the potential to go past this. Animals do not.
If human beings are only animals, and equal to animals in all ways, then how are they able to consciously go against natural drives? An animal may be put under stress and cease to function as it usually does, but a human can do so by choice with no physical stressor. Are humans animals? Not only. They are not equal to other animals in the animal kingdom. It is because of their potentially to move past certain animals instincts that they cannot be classified as animals. Animals cannot go past this. What would a monk be classified as? After all there is no natural stressor forcing him to behave in such a way, so they are not reacting to instinct or drive. How are they animals then?
To me it proved that dogs came from not only wolves but the coyotes and foxes also.Maybe hyenas and dingos too. Plus we would not have 164 different breads of dogs without human intervention through selective breading.. So no a fox is not always a fox and a wolf does not always remain a wolf, and a coyote does not always stay a coyote.
But a dog is always a dog. If a dog gives birth to a cat, the dog is still a dog. The dog may very in form but a dog is always a dog, otherwise the concept of dog would disappear entirely and we would be unable to acknowledge it. Animals may change appearances, but there are constants which do not change.
We will always act like animals and no we will never move past acting like what we are..No matter how you act its still a human action and therefore an animal action..
Then why separate the two? Is mathematics a product of animals? Is it caused by some base survival drive? Because in reality we can survive without it.
A person can be referred to as acting as an animal or as a human being. Where in the animal kingdom is judgment passed for acting less than an animal? How can an animal be “less” than an animal? This question would have to be asked as many people judge other of having more/less of animalistic behavior than others. Do we have animal behaviors? Yes. Do we have non animal behaviors? Yes. We cannot be classified as only animals unless we always exhibit the same behavior.
The penalty for conversion in many religions is death. Death for apostasy (renunciation of one’s faith). An ancient tradition across a wide swath of religions.
This is the same in Athiest states. People were also put to death for renouncing family and friends too. Renunciation have a death penalty would be a more accurate statement. Also conversion to another faith does not lead to a death sentence in one prior faith always. If one looked into the various religions, one can see commonalities but there are many differences. In many respects these faiths can be lumped into a concept of “religion” without nullifying their values.
And good Christians should do similarly, if they’ve read their Bible. Burning of witches, blasphemers, deists, and apostates took place even in England up until a couple hundred years ago.
Anyone with a different ideology was treated that way, regardless of the faith of the government. Christians were treated the same. In a world with little communication, the borders of a culture is what solidified a culture and set state of beliefs. Arguing a faith promotes it and arguing a government promotes it are two different things. At the end of the day, unity was achieved through ideology as much as physical force during those times. And in regards to the “burning of witches, blasphemers, etc.” much of the issue was with undermining government authority also. To blasphem God would be to blaspheme He who gave authority to government, and in a sense nillify government. If I went into an athiest government and said athiesm was wrong I would get the same treatment. If government was undermined than instability would take hold and war would break out. Religion and government were separate entities in themselves but heavily intertwined.
Americans don’t trust atheists.
Assuming your statement is true, why should they? Look at the Soviet Union on the macro level. Or look at the micro level at athletes such as Armstrong who deceived others. It is a legitimate question, with no moral code or standard of values why should an atheist be trusted? What accountability do they have other than themselves?
I would argue precisely the OPPOSITE about Jews; historically they were FORCED to convert under Christendom, the inquisition, and pogroms
Go back to the argument about faith and government. There have also been many instances where they weren’t forced conversion under Christendom. Also non Christians (Hitler, Stalin) still persecuted them. Many Jews were forced into middle class jobs because of not being permitted to work in lower class jobs. This created an economic snowball effect, as they were held responsible or any economic downturns. (Assuming I remember this all correctly). Athiests also forced “conversions” (denunciation would be a better word). Soviet Russia, North Korea for example or if one wants to be loose with the definition of Athiest “pagan” Rome.
You should know all of this. If a religion or set of beliefs is determined by the Government and its relation to murder, then Athiesm’s record is far from clean if not way worse than most faiths.
Why did God create such brutal people and what changed them? What about ancient religions such as Jainism in India that took non-aggression to any living thing as the highest value? It predates Christianity, granted, it’s been in decline for a very long time. Please be specific about what I’ve said that’s biased and twisted; the history of apostasy in major world religions is to apply the death penalty across a wide swath of time, I just don’t see that as disputable. Read about Theodosius’s persecution of pagans, the inquisition, and apostasy and get back with me.
God created people, they (we) chose to be brutal. At the time when certain moral laws were revealed people were brutal as moral law existed but was subjective or ill defined. Over time, people “softened up” due to the law. In regards to Jainism, pacificism is fundamentally contradictory as it states that one has the right to have no violence committed against them but they are not able to force it.
I am not disputing about the death penalty, but in a time where religion and government were intertwined it is unavoidable. Even christians were subject to the inquisition, it was not jews only. To undermine the faith was to undermine the government itself. And government is a natural condition amongst men. There is always some authority structure in some respect or another. But as I said before, if a faith/ideology is to be judged by persecutions, then you would have to hold atheism accountable. Also what government could exist that allowed anti-government language to be promoted? We are seeing the U.S. fail today because of this.
Your argument seems to be that religion/government is evil because it did not permit certain ideologies and used force to control them. But tell me how could stability be maintain in any government without punishment in some form or another? How can governments claim authority without claiming power from a deity or deifying themselves.
Anarchy cannot exist on its own terms.
As for blood sacrifice (typically animals, sometimes humans), it was part of many religions and still is a part today of some. Animal sacrifice was most certainly an important part of Judaism from which Christianity came. And blood sacrifice of Jesus is at the CORE of Christianty ‘I am the lamb of God’. There is certainly human sacrifice in the Old Testament; give me your firstborn, after all… Or Jephtha’s sacrificing his daughter, after God helped him defeat his enemies, that’s some wicked ‘ole Testament shiet there…Why is blood sacrifice required to forgive sins?
It was also stated that God preferred mercy rather than sacrifice. To sacrifice an animal back then would be to sacrifice a physical part of oneself, as the animals were literally required for food. To commit offense would be to sell oneself in a sense. That is why mercy was a greater sacrifice, because it forces one to let go of a fuller part of oneself, not just a meal. There is a cause and effect, or economic, way one can interpret things. To put it simply, we can do what we want but there are consequences and it does cost something.
born son, there is some disagreement. Some theologians think it is literal, others see it as offering up as a life of
service. Exodus Chapter 13 speaks of the consecration of the firstborn. 13:13-16 says, ” Redeem with a lamb every
firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons. In days to come,
when your son asks you, What does this mean? say to him, ” With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of
the land of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man
and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn
sons.” Reading the verse one can assume the son was not killed as the phrase “when you son asks” means he was not killed.In regards to the firstIn regards to Jeptha, he made a vow out of rashness due to an invasion. This is in a time where people did what they promised to do, and a man’s word held greater value than life itself. It is not that the sacrifice was right or required, but rather that he made a solemn promise.
Going back to the necessity of Jesus being killed, man did not need to kill Jesus. It was because man would not
sacrifice a greater part of himself through mercy that the blood sacrificial system was instituted (one cannot
know fully why God does things, but this understanding does not contradict his will.) A perfect sacrifice was
needed to erase man’s wrongs. Something eternal for something eternal. If man practiced mercy would this be needed?
No. Jesus did not have to sacrifice
himself, he did not have to follow God’s will. He permited man to kill his Son so that man would be saved through
the ultimate sacrifice that would open up man’s ability for eternal salvation. He accepted to be sacrifice on his own accord
, noone forced him. Also death itself was conquered through
Christ, in the resurrection, and as both 100% God and 100% man (which can be at the same time in two different respects)
God brought about man’s salvation through man. God gave man the ability to save man through Jesus. In many senses
it was the ultimate expression of free will and mercy and to raise man into Union with God.Now I understand that you might have questions, or this might not appear clear due to my own fault, so I would expect you to ask questions if I was not clear enough or you do not understand.
In regards to me saying you were bias, I would have to stick by that for two reasons. You did not acknowledge the
persecutions from non-religious or athiest governments and did not acknowledge that during the inquisitions that other
Christians were held accountable.John Doe: There is no ‘proof’ of atheism; any more than there is a proof of Zeus. I cannot conduct re-producible miracles to prove religion or do a double-blind study on salvation and damnation by taking Saints and Sinners as my control groups. All that evolution, radiocarbon and other dating methods that converge on the age of the earth and life, and the fossil record, contribute is that they make literalism highly implausible, e.g. young earth creationism. Believers can still claim a God created the earth with apparent age, or set evolutionary processes in motion. A more damning indictment of Christianity is the immorality of God. You have not addressed the Christian God’s body count or my comments on the death penalty for apostasy, a disturbing commandment in both Christianity and Islam.
Evolution is not a theory, it’s a reality. Every year we have a different flue virus. Granted, viruses replicate rapidly so the process is quick.
You are correct. Values and morals do not necessarily equate to the well being of conscious creatures; one may be a Good Muslim and value killing non-believers and be considered moral in his culture; or fly an airplane into an office building containing Infidels since it is God’s will. In another culture this may be considered immoral, that even though our God says we should kill those damn apostates as the Bible clearly indicates, we are instead embracing tolerance as a cultural value. Science has nothing to say about values and morals or right and wrong; this is not its province.
How does science ‘fail’ at explaining ‘honor’? It isn’t a subject for scientific inquiry. In some cultures, ‘honor killing’ of women is acceptable; in other cultures, it’s ‘honorable’ to go to war for your country and kill your fellow man. In other times and places it’s honorable to be truthful and follow through with your commitments and honor your word.
The fossil record shows the evolution of species. Transitional forms exist and are well documented. This was an early criticism of evolutionary theory by literalist believers, the so-called ‘Missing Link’.
As for success of smaller organisms, most of the living biomass on a weight basis, comprises viruses, bacteria, ants and other insects, etc, rather than large mammals. Doubtless short lifecycles are an advantage.
We are animals based on the dictionary definition of animal: ‘a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.’ — you can argue we’re a ‘higher animal’ since we’ve been so successful we’ve dominated the other animals, domesticated many of them, and formed a civilization spanning the globe.
Humans had a large surplus or time and energy and had time to develop mathematics, art, culture, and science. My dog has excess time too, but she just sleeps. And chases squirrels.
Moral law has been subjective throughout the ages; slavery is accepted in the Bible, but isn’t so acceptable today; human sacrifice, acceptable in the Bible, not acceptable today. Property is communal in some societies, so no theft. It’s okay to kill in war (State sanctioned) but not okay to kill someone who looks at me funny. Science is not going to give you any objective morality. As you say, you start with what you value, and morals spring from there.
Even if conditions are unchanging, evolution can improve an organism; it’s resistance to diseases, its ability to use energy efficiently, etc. If there are less stressors, evolution will be slower if the organisms are in a land ‘o plenty.
As for evolving past organic life, I feel we are nearing the point where artificial intelligence may be achieved and thereby evolve beyond organic biology and mortality — or our creations will. Evolution may repeat itself; if the conditions are right. If the windows of the firmament are opened again and the world flooded & the Heathens such as me & BTL drown aquatic life forms may predominate again. I use that as a humorous example; I’m sufficiently educated in the Bible to realize God promised he would not do another global flood. I do like a deity with some imagination in how to kill his creations, so that alone may be a good reason to not dismiss the xtian faith. You have to have some humor in this dialogue!
I don’t understand your comparison of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire to biological evolution; we could debate why the Empire fell (military losses/failures, indebtedness, the split between Eastern and Western Empire prior to the Fall of the Western Empire, over-reliance on slave labor, a ‘model’ reliant on conquering territory to grow/survive, etc) — but I fail to see a tie-in to biological evolution. The Germans had the best technology (Tiger Tank, rockets, air force, jet aircrafts never deployed, superweapons), but made major errors leading to loss in World War II (two front war, pogrom against the Jews costing them valuable scientists, and allowing politicians like Hitler to run the war rather than professional generals like Rommel).
John, you really didn’t address some of my questions such as how irreligious countries can be ‘moral’, if religion is the only source of morality? You also didn’t address my question of why the Christian God doesn’t follow his own commandments? I’m most interested in ‘thou shalt not kill’. Also, why do all these Gods need worshipped? They are more narcissistic than a woman! ‘Thou shalt have no gods but me.’ — and of course, if you do have other Gods, you’re supposed to kill the disbeliever yourself. Is that just? Is slavery sanctioned by the Bible just? If not, how is the Bible the ultimate guide to morality?
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
