I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
So let me get this straight.

Without the morality guide given to us by the bible we are more able to go astray?

And with the bible that isn't likely due to having god as our ultimate judge?

That's not even logical. Not even close. Without god we have to hold ourselves accountable. We have to be good for our own sakes and for everyone and everything around us. Sociopaths and psychopaths are obviously exempt from this, but they are also exempt from religious morality. At least without god we tend to treat them medically instead of claim them as prophets who talk to god.

Also without the bible we have to think of how we'd like to be treated. With the bible that is irrelevant. We just do what we're told.

http://www.evilbible.com/

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
19-03-2012, 04:16 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 04:18 AM by SixForty.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
To Logica Humano:

"Saying that it is "bad" even though most people believe it to be "good" (or vice versa) is making the assumption that there is an objectivity outside the human psyche, when there is not. The only thing keeping people from murdering each other is the predisposition in the mind not to do so. As I have said, it is an evolutionary trait found in pack animals (and most others in general)."

But how are you not simply making the same assumption that there isn't an objectivity outside the human psyche?

And if you believe something is morally good or even just acceptable simply because it can be seen in animals, I think that idea breaks down to absurdity very quickly! Should we be polygamous and attempt to kill rival males like lions do? Should we kill and eat our young like polar bears occasionally do? Should we procreate through gang rape like nurse sharks? Should pedophilia be acceptable since it can often be seen in hyenas or bonobos?

If you accept that morality is just an evolutionary trait, then you have to accept that humans could viably participate in any of those activities I listed and consider it perfectly acceptable. I don't believe that any rational person can do that.

"Ah, but it is observable and provable."

It neither, but if that's where you want to put your faith, more power to ya!

"If it was not socially acceptable for me to make the name, I wouldn't have made the name."

But social acceptability can change - sometimes on a whim. If it changes after you've already taken the name, would you still feel the same way? This is why defining morality through social acceptability is completely untenable.

To lucradis:

"Without the morality guide given to us by the bible we are more able to go astray?"

Possibly, but not necessarily. Most Christians would tell you that God has written His law on the heart of every individual - what we call our conscience. Deep down inside, if people really considered it, they would know the truth of certain rights and wrongs.

"And with the bible that isn't likely due to having god as our ultimate judge?"

Smile I'll leave the answer to that one to the apostle Paul. He wrote (me paraphrasing here) that the law (i.e., the morality of the bible) doesn't exist to bring people to God, since it could never do that. It exists to clearly show people how sinful they are. Try it - read the 10 commandments and measure yourself up to them. How many do you pass, and how many do you fail?

"That's not even logical. Not even close. Without god we have to hold ourselves accountable. We have to be good for our own sakes and for everyone and everything around us."

I don't see how that's illogical in anyway. Contrary to what you say, without God we really don't have to hold ourselves accountable to ourselves or anyone else. We don't have to be good for any reason at all. What does it matter in the end? Whether I am a saint or a mass murderer, if I die and cease to exist in the end, what does it matter either way? There's no real purpose to being good. Sure, we can invent some trite sounding purposes in our own mind, but in the end, none of them ever matter.

"Also without the bible we have to think of how we'd like to be treated. With the bible that is irrelevant. We just do what we're told."

Actually, I think it was the bible that said something like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Sounds a lot like "we have to think of how we'd like to be treated". So even though you don't want to get your morality from the bible, it seems like you actually are! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 04:33 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 04:16 AM)SixForty Wrote:  So even though you don't want to get your morality from the bible, it seems like you actually are! Smile

Um. No Tongue We get our morality from ourselves. The fact that is coincides with some sentences written thousands of years ago is amazing only to believers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-03-2012, 04:42 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Well, with regards to the point about whether evolution is observable and provable...
E. Coli Long Term Experimental Evolution Project

Also, selective breeding of animals and plants. Here are some examples Smile
[Image: mustardgeneticvariation.png]
[Image: dog-breeds-chart-comparing-breeds.jpg]

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 07:57 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
To robotworld:

These diagrams are fantastic! If this is what you consider evolution, then I'm all for it! Dog breeding is a remarkable example of adaptation and variation in animals. And a great example of mutations and artificial selection too! (natural selection's cousin) And we can trace back almost all kinds of dogs to original canine ancestors. We can see how genetic mutations have effected different breeds. It's all quite amazing, isn't it? Not only that, but the speed at which this happens is remarkable evidence of how adaptation and variation can occur so quickly, in so few generations, in just a few thousand years, thus not needing long periods of millions of years. And as you say, this is all observable and provable!

The moment someone says that the next step back is some 40 million year old weasel type creature, that's where you lose me. Definitely no observations of that. Definitely no proof for that. A whole lot of hypothetical explanations, a whole lot of wishful thinking, a whole lot of conjectures, and a whole lot of unsubstantiated belief that I just can't buy into. Making that leap is logically untenable and mostly bad science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 08:44 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 04:16 AM)SixForty Wrote:  But how are you not simply making the same assumption that there isn't an objectivity outside the human psyche?

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. It is much more logical to assume that there is no such thing as objective morality, for there is no evidence to support it. There is evidence, however, stating that morality is indeed subjective.

(19-03-2012 04:16 AM)SixForty Wrote:  And if you believe something is morally good or even just acceptable simply because it can be seen in animals, I think that idea breaks down to absurdity very quickly! Should we be polygamous and attempt to kill rival males like lions do? Should we kill and eat our young like polar bears occasionally do? Should we procreate through gang rape like nurse sharks? Should pedophilia be acceptable since it can often be seen in hyenas or bonobos?

If you accept that morality is just an evolutionary trait, then you have to accept that humans could viably participate in any of those activities I listed and consider it perfectly acceptable. I don't believe that any rational person can do that.

I am not saying it is "right" because it is observable in animals. Nice assumption, buddy. I am saying that both empathy and morality are found in animals, therefore, humanity is not unique in that regard.

As I have said, empathy and morality is subjective, even for animals. They think that whatever action they do is "right" because that is what they feel (it is what they are predisposed to). Humans, however, do not accept such actions because we have evolved to morally believe they are not. You assume, simply because people say evolution is true, that we will start acting like animals. Do not bullshit me, that is exactly what you are saying.

(19-03-2012 04:16 AM)SixForty Wrote:  It neither, but if that's where you want to put your faith, more power to ya!

I am sorry, but what evidence is not accessible to your feeble mind? Go to any museum and there are mounds of physical evidence for you. There are mounds of genetic evidence, studies, observations.

(19-03-2012 04:16 AM)SixForty Wrote:  But social acceptability can change - sometimes on a whim. If it changes after you've already taken the name, would you still feel the same way? This is why defining morality through social acceptability is completely untenable.

Name something that has been morally accepted on a "whim". Please do.


P.S: Try using quotes. They work nicely.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Artificial selection takes quite a short time for it to be achieved, but for other forms of evolution? They can take millions of years for the effects to be even observable.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to the absence of transitional fossils or that the is evidence lacking in proving evolution which spans over millions of years. However, various phylogenetic trees can be constructed using molecular data or physical homology. The phylogenetic trees using these two data will be different, so such trees serves as a guide to obtain common ancestry between two species. The trees will change as more fossils and molecular data are uncovered.

Here's an interesting cladogram/phylogenetic tree as an example
[Image: TreeOfLife.jpg]

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 09:03 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
@Logica Humano
Quotes are broken right now.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 09:35 AM by SixForty.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
To Logica Humano: (sorry, I can't seem to use the quotes. The first few posts I made here they worked fine. Since then, they stopped working - the text in the quotes simply doesn't show up. I don't know if it was something I did or not, but if it was, I can't figure it out.)

"You are the one making the extraordinary claim. It is much more logical to assume that there is no such thing as objective morality, for there is no evidence to support it. There is evidence, however, stating that morality is indeed subjective."

I find this to be completely arbitrary. Why is objectively morality not the default view? I see numerous other aspects of the universe that are completely objective and not subjective. For example, laws of logic are objective (the law of non-contradiction exists at every point in the universe and at every point in time throughout history), mathematical truths are objective (1 + 1 = 2 always, everywhere, no matter what), the uniform laws of nature are objective (the law of the conservation of angular momentum exists whether or not I'm standing here on earth today or sitting inside a distant star a thousand years ago, even if I'm not using the law or feeling it's effects, it still exists). All of these things are clearly objective by default. It is clearly logical to accept morality to be the same. Objective morality should be the default view. I would say that claiming objective morality does NOT exist is the extraordinary claim.

"I am not saying it is "right" because it is observable in animals. Nice assumption, buddy. I am saying that both empathy and morality are found in animals, therefore, humanity is not unique in that regard. "

You're earlier argument was that there was no objectivity outside the human psyche, morality is just a predisposition in the mind, and it is an evolutionary trait found in animals. My argument is that the sentiment you've expressed breaks down to absurdity quickly by similar analogies in the animal kingdom. I could just as easily say "eating our young is acceptable in my psyche; it's a predisposition in my mind; it is an evolutionary trait found in animals". By your reasoning, this would by moral. I claim that is absurd, and patently false. Given that it is false, it thereby refutes the claim that no objective morality exists outside the human psyche.

" You assume, simply because people say evolution is true, that we will start acting like animals. Do not bullshit me, that is exactly what you are saying."

No - I never say that. My claim is not that people will start acting like animals, it's that people will have complete justification if they do act like animals. You yourself have given them that justification by your own argument above.

"I am sorry, but what evidence is not accessible to your feeble mind? Go to any museum and there are mounds of physical evidence for you. There are mounds of genetic evidence, studies, observations."

I've seen all the evidence. And when I take off the naturalistic and materialistic glasses and really look at the evidence, it doesn't support evolution. Not even really all that close.

"Name something that has been morally accepted on a "whim". Please do."

Good thing I never actually claimed things have been accepted on a whim - just that they can be! Smile But I'll throw you a bone on that one. Just consider mob mentality in a riot. You have a group of friends who would never consider breaking the law. They get caught up in a mob riot, and all of a sudden they are justifying vandalism, theft, assault. Their view of what is socially acceptable (and therefore moral in your view) changes almost instantly, for no good reason at all.
To robotworld:

The lack of transitional fossils is definitely a part of it - it's a massive stumbling block for evolution. But so is the Cambrian explosion. And even the differences between homology and genetic ancestry that you mention - things don't fit anywhere near as well as they are made out to. But there are just so many other reasons as well. The whole concept of convergent evolution - am I seriously supposed to believe that marsupial moles and placental moles evolved from such drastically different ancestors so far back in the chain to look so unbelievably similar? Way too many leaps of faith for me to make - I don't know how evolutionists have that much faith!

As for pictures, here are two fun ones (sorry for the bad quality, just a quick scan job right now)

The first is a picture of a display from the Chicago Field Museum showing supposed dinosaur evolution and ancestry. The second is the same picture with the actual number of known fossils overlaid. It clearly shows that once you go back beyond a certain point, all evidence disappears, and everything else is built on speculation. It's like this for effectively every branch of the supposed tree of life.

   
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
SixForty: "And if you believe something is morally good or even just acceptable simply because it can be seen in animals, I think that idea breaks down to absurdity very quickly! Should we be polygamous and attempt to kill rival males like lions do? Should we kill and eat our young like polar bears occasionally do? Should we procreate through gang rape like nurse sharks? Should pedophilia be acceptable since it can often be seen in hyenas or bonobos?"

Just because a trait for ethical behavior is or is not present in a particular species does not mean that we should consider it a positive trait for humanity. It simply means that the evidence for that trait is or is not present in other species. It makes no ruling on it being either right or wrong- just natural. Humans just have a an advanced capability to make a decision about how ethical any particular behavior is. There are some logical theories for why this is evolved in humans.

SixForty: "If you accept that morality is just an evolutionary trait, then you have to accept that humans could viably participate in any of those activities I listed and consider it perfectly acceptable. I don't believe that any rational person can do that."

If by acceptable you mean in a ethereal sort of way, directly impacting a person's eternal existence- then you're right, those things are perfectly acceptable. In the sense that there is no evidence that the "you" that is you will exist eternally, or even for any length of time beyond your body.

But, when a humanist speaks of "acceptable" in relation to behavior, we speak of impact on the world around you, with an emphasis typically on other humans. It would be unacceptable to procreate using "gang rape" (like the nurse sharks of your example) for a number of reasons relating to health both physically and emotionally everyone involved, especially the female.

SixForty: "What does it matter in the end? Whether I am a saint or a mass murderer, if I die and cease to exist in the end, what does it matter either way? There's no real purpose to being good. Sure, we can invent some trite sounding purposes in our own mind, but in the end, none of them ever matter."

We're brought back to what you mean by "end". Your end probably does not mean the same thing as when I speak of "the end". When I say die, that is the end of me and whatever impact I had on the world will continue only as long as the impact is of sufficient strength that it could carry on without me. But I will be completely unaware of it. So to me it doesn't matter after I'm dead. But I would like to think that the impact I have on the world is a positive one, even if small and only affecting a few people around me. I desire that my legacy be a positive one- or neutral at worst. But there is no afterlife for which I am concerned.

So what's to stop me if I happen to be the type of person who is not concerned about my legacy being positive? I think that's what you're getting at. But the answer isn't very special. Just society. If you are incapable of policing yourself then your community's laws will do it for you. And that's the way it works, and there are no gods that play a apart.

SixForty: "Actually, I think it was the bible that said something like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Sounds a lot like "we have to think of how we'd like to be treated". So even though you don't want to get your morality from the bible, it seems like you actually are! Smile"

We all know that the golden rule is not limited to the Bible. It is as Biblical as the story of Jesus is unique. That is to say, not very unique.

SixForty: "Why is objectively morality not the default view? I see numerous other aspects of the universe that are completely objective and not subjective. For example, laws of logic are objective (the law of non-contradiction exists at every point in the universe and at every point in time throughout history), mathematical truths are objective (1 + 1 = 2 always, everywhere, no matter what), the uniform laws of nature are objective (the law of the conservation of angular momentum exists whether or not I'm standing here on earth today or sitting inside a distant star a thousand years ago, even if I'm not using the law or feeling it's effects, it still exists). All of these things are clearly objective by default. It is clearly logical to accept morality to be the same. Objective morality should be the default view. I would say that claiming objective morality does NOT exist is the extraordinary claim."

Because the universe entirely is unconcerned with how ethical you are. You cannot choose to disobey math. You cannot choose to disobey gravity. And something is either logical or not logical. But ethics/morality are not the same for all species or life. Math and gravity is the same for everything- for everyone. It makes no sense to hold morality to be objective. There is no foundation for such a claim. I see you've listed a number of objective claims, but you've unfortunately lost me in linking morality to the rest of them and identifying it as objective law.

We don't reference Seth's videos all that much here, even though it is his forum. So in keeping with the name, here's one of his vids on the subject:



Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: