Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:45 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Why are you wasting your time then?

How are we wasting time? Christ man. It's a friggin' discussion forum. You're here trying to sell us snake oil, and you think we're wasting our time pointing out the obvious flaws?

Not you. The other guy was stating a very strong opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:53 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2016 03:57 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:50 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:48 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I read The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet. It's far from easy book so I need some cheap amusement; seeing as yet another theist is trying to peddle his bullshit amuses me greatly.

Honesty is best policy I think.

Happy to amuse.

That's good I guess.

(18-12-2016 03:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I "waste my time" arguing against Creationism because it has very real consequences for my country and society, if people reject scientific thinking for the idea that "well there are two groups arguing about this, so I'll go with the side I prefer" is an okay way to go through life.

I greatly appreciate your input but I think that you're really wasting your time as I doubt that creationists (or majority of believers) could be swayed by reason. Having said that it's hardly wasting time if you enjoy it regardless of result.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:35 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Strawman argument
Um. Words mean things. You can't just post that and leave the field with the victory. Please explain to me how that is a strawman?
The implication that someone who believes the Genesis story of creation cannot do legitimate science and their conclusions are suspect for that reason alone. Refute the conclusions provided by the scientist not their religious beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:How do you know I am?
I don't Wink Not for certain. But I'm pretty sure. About as sure as I am that you won't lead me to God. Basically you deny scientific fact in favour of your religious tales. That's a strong hint to me that you're not thinking critically.

No, I may deny what you accept as scientific fact. I have read and believe other scientists.

Would you allow me to say that you believe the universe is 13.8 billions years old only because you do not believe there is a God? You are not thinking critically because you hate the idea of God. Of course not. You cannot do that to others.

Julien Huxley is purported to have said that he doesn't believe in God because it would get in the way of his sexual mores. Not a perfect quote. You can go and find places that say he never said that. You can also find places that say he did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 04:10 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:49 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Citation please.

Always a pleasure to do so.

It took me a while to find a source you would accept, as simple surveys (e.g. Pew Research Polls) don't really ask the questions very well (for either side) and most of my sources come from mainstream scientific organizations you would likely reject out of hand. So here's my best effort to show you what I mean:

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology.
... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.


(Ellipses in original.)

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evol...lution.php

Further, I can show you clearly that the organizations you rely upon are willing to be disingenuous (lie) in order to inflate their numbers:





You should watch that video on the Discovery Institute's list of anti-evolution "scientists", and what happens to the list when you actually look into it.



(18-12-2016 03:49 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Speaking of Germ Theory -Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.

Took quite a while for the doctors to accept the truth.

Agreed. But Semmelweis offered good evidence for his claims, and when tested (examined closely) they proved to be correct, and so they were overwhelmingly accepted.

I'm particularly fond of Kurt Vonnegut's essay "Guessers", which talks about Semmelweis.

http://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/Misc...lweis.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
18-12-2016, 04:14 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:59 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um. Words mean things. You can't just post that and leave the field with the victory. Please explain to me how that is a strawman?
The implication that someone who believes the Genesis story of creation cannot do legitimate science and their conclusions are suspect for that reason alone. Refute the conclusions provided by the scientist not their religious beliefs.
Hmm. I can see why you'd think that but no. If the flood hypothesis was legitimate science and the proposers legitimate scientists, then you would see support for it in the scientific community that was not dependent on the religious affiliation of the scientist. While I agree that good science may be done by someone who is simultaneously a creationist, if creationism is good science then it should be trivial to find one non-religious scientist who believes in it. I will even accept other religions that do not have a flood myth.

Cue bloody answersingenesis to set up some charlatan to pretend to be non-religious and write a paper for their wretched website Dodgy

Quote:
Quote:I don't Wink Not for certain. But I'm pretty sure. About as sure as I am that you won't lead me to God. Basically you deny scientific fact in favour of your religious tales. That's a strong hint to me that you're not thinking critically.

No, I may deny what you accept as scientific fact. I have read and believe other scientists.
Individual scientists may be interesting, but on settled questions like creationism, it is *consensus* views that you are rejecting. No one seriously disputes evolution except cranks and religious nut cases.

Quote:Would you allow me to say that you believe the universe is 13.8 billions years old only because you do not believe there is a God? You are not thinking critically because you hate the idea of God. Of course not. You cannot do that to others.
Dodgy Here we have you redefining the words "critical thinking". It means checking facts. I believe the universe is 13.8 bn years old because scientific consensus says so. If they change their minds I will update my belief. I am not an expert on the age of the universe. You aren't either, so if you say it is 6000 years old I can explicitly say that you believe that strictly because you ignore scientific consensus. Which is *not* thinking critically.

Quote:Julien Huxley is purported to have said that he doesn't believe in God because it would get in the way of his sexual mores. Not a perfect quote. You can go and find places that say he never said that. You can also find places that say he did.
So find a credible source.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
18-12-2016, 04:15 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:51 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I "waste my time" arguing against Creationism because it has very real consequences for my country and society, if people reject scientific thinking for the idea that "well there are two groups arguing about this, so I'll go with the side I prefer" is an okay way to go through life.

You're not even curious to know if the group upon which you rely is literally lying about polystrate trees?

I have read both sides.

You keep saying that you "have read" these things. Yet you don't see that the claims being made by the Creationist organizations are not factual. The talk about the trees going through the geological layers, when they don't go through the types of geological layers that would back up their claim.

I do not see how a reasonable and honest person can claim they have "read both sides" and still think there's something to discuss.

I'm quite serious about wanting to know how that is possible for you.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-12-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
I also don't understand how you can claim that we're saying that people are suspect just because of their religious beliefs.

They are suspect because they have taken an oath to uphold one particular view over all others.

Scientists do not do this. In science, you are applauded for successfully demonstrating that bad ideas are bad ideas, even if it takes a while to overcome the momentum of a previous idea.

You are ignoring the simple fact that a HUGE percentage of biologists, geologists, and astrophysicists are Christians. The guy who came up with the idea of the Big Bang was a priest. The head of the Human Genome Project is an evangelical Christian. And so on it goes. Why would they claim evolution is true, by the thousands, if it was not so? They have every reason to say "nope, it's a lie! I was forced to tell a lie!"

You'd have to contend that the Director of the US National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project, an openly Christian man, is willing to collude with atheists to uphold his standing as a scientist... as if he is not capable of punching his own ticket at this point.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-12-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Back to the subject of Christian vs. Humanist morality ...

The former (CM) has been stated as:

(16-12-2016 10:28 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  ...
James 4:17New International Version (NIV)
17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

(16-12-2016 08:16 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 12:59 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 11:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm given to believe that a large number of christians voted for Trump. So not only did they not do good but they went further and did bad.

Are they therefore christians who lack christian morality or are they unchristian?

Unsure

Bump!

Sleepy

Woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head...

Eagerly expecting to see an answer to my question ... disappoint.

So ... bump ... again.

Perhaps I have to resort to BOLD RED LARGE font like FBH did in order to get a reply.

What can we conclude from the avoidance of my question:

a) it might be indicator of lack of conviction with the stated description of CM?
b) it's an indicator of instinct/feel that there is something unsound or invalid with that version of CM? (thinks it might be trap).
c) it's an indicator of a known flaw? (knows it's a trap).

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
18-12-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
I guess this should satify your hate against the bible for acknowledging rape.
http://m.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo...usband.htm

http://m.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/...Victim.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 11:37 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
I believe in evolution between the species but not having common ancestor. God made monkeys close to man but man wasn't a monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: