IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 24th February 2013, 07:54 AM   #5081
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
That's right. Although moral standards can still be based on objective facts.

Quote:
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Even your god's morality is subjective. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 clearly prescribes the murder of your own daughter should you discover that she's had sex. Exodus 21:7 tells you how to sell your daughter as a slave. You yourself described this as "evil". You've even attempted to show Paul as an authority to grant reason to ignore the "curse" of those laws. You are horrified by the edicts of the Bible, so you find excuses to dismiss them. Your morality is as subjective as anyone else's.

By the way, who was lying, Jesus or Paul?

Quote:
3. Therefore, God exists.
Which god?

Quote:
The argument is logically valid;
Not even remotely.

Quote:
so if you want to deny the conclusion, you must reject one of the two premisses. So which one do you deny?
You really have to ask?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 07:57 AM   #5082
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
maybe some of hope that you will turn off the parrot robot, stop the copy and paste and actually enter the discussion.
I'd say that a number of us would be quite agreeable to that and the claims of GIBHOR's dishonesty would likely vanish fairly completely.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:00 AM   #5083
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
please point out, how objective moral values can exist without God.
Is it your claim, then, that the fact that you want to be able to claim that not believing in a 'god' (and, I suspect, if you were to honestly admit it, not believing in your particular version of the spoiled-brat vengeful, petty 'god' of your version of the bible) makes one immoral?

Moral values are not objective--being told to do horrible things by 'god' does not make the things less horrible just because your superstition gives you room to pretend you have leave...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:21 AM   #5084
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
The problem with infinite regression, supported by special pleading, has been explained to you. You ignored it last time. It's still wrong (and OT).
i am not a proponent of infinite regression, but of the existence of a eternal, uncreated God, that made the universe.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:22 AM   #5085
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
They don't exist
So therefore based on what could you possibly say the nazis were wrong ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:24 AM   #5086
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Plenty of people have already done so..
show me empirical evidence of addition of information in the genome through natural selection and mutation.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:30 AM   #5087
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i am not a proponent of infinite regression, but of the existence of a eternal, uncreated God, that made the universe.
A simple fact is that existence is a more encompassing concept than "God." Existence can exist, with or without a God, but existence always exists if a God exists. Thus, a god cannot be fundamentally necessary for existence to exist, which counters and overrules the point of the something can't come from nothing argument, regardless, and forces the concept of infinite regression upon any claims of the necessity of a creator god. No, it's not the kind of issue that can be defined around, as has been attempted. It's a logical and conceptual conflict.

Certainly, you can claim a deity that created our universe and, from our perspective, appears eternal and uncreated. That's simply from our perspective, though. The logic doesn't work so well if eternity from the deity's perspective is used.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:35 AM   #5088
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So therefore based on what could you possibly say the nazis were wrong ?
The mixture of the learned values that we were raised to hold and the values that we have chosen to consider important. This is another question that you keep trying to repeat, seemingly without understanding that you're doing the exact same thing that we are, just that we're quite willing to identify the most likely causes and you want to claim universal truth where none is in evidence.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:50 AM   #5089
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So therefore based on what could you possibly say the nazis were wrong ?
Because my subjective morals say they were wrong. If morals are objective, how can you say killing your daughter for having sex is wrong?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:00 AM   #5090
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is very little on wiki.... please explain what you understand as epigenetics.
There is actually quite a bit on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
and elsewhere.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/


Epigenetics is the ability to pass on heritable traits without explicitly relying on DNA mutations, but rather passing on expression profiles. These changes in expression profiles represent new information (new coding) that is achieved through DNA modifications that occur in the parent. (e.g., DNA methylation).

This has resulted in creationists scrambling to figure out ways to explain away this discovery. The most common tactic is to avoid the "no new information" argument all together, because it is faulty. typically, they will attempt to redefine information. But that argument is lost.


Now, would you like to explain RNAi and it's implications in evolution and/or creationism?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:00 AM   #5091
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So therefore based on what could you possibly say the nazis were wrong ?
The deaths of 50 to 70 million people, the near total destruction of the German nation, as well as the devastation of many other nations. The Nazis were wrong because they inflicted death and pain on a massive scale based on nothing more than greed and their ridiculous notions of their own superiority to other human beings. The human race, as a whole, suffered because of their

You desperately want to believe that subjective morality means that "anything goes" and that there can't be any solid basis for moral codes. You are wrong. Subjective morality means that we admit that our morals are behaviors that have evolved along with us, and that these behaviors facilitate our survival and function as a social species. It means that we admit that we are responsible for our morality and that we can alter it if we find that we can no longer justify certain aspects of it. For example, a society can change from one in which it is regarded as just to kill our daughters for having sex to one in which our daughters are free to take ownership of their own lives and choose their own sexual partners. By claiming that your own morals are objectively dictated by a divine authority figure, you avoid having to justify or take responsibility for your own morality.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:04 AM   #5092
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
show me empirical evidence of addition of information in the genome through natural selection and mutation.
AS i said, you only make this argument because you are ignorant of biology.

But if you would like info on this,
how about how a single bacterium can create a genetically diverse biofilm community.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12503.figures-only
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:07 AM   #5093
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is very little on wiki.... please explain what you understand as epigenetics.
Uhuh...
Quote:
About 2,810,000 results (0.22 seconds)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:23 AM   #5094
jof
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

Originally Posted by jof View Post
GIBHOR,
Our morality evolved with us, as part of our nature.
Imagine a flock of early humans; slow running, weak musceled, soft skinned and infants helpless.
Big brains and moral instincts are their tools for survival, it's not a great mystery .
The moral teachings we see in the bible are a part of our cultural honing of these tools, but the book is getting old.

GIBHOR,
Does this make sense to you as a naturalistic explanation of morality?

Please point out how the killing of babies is neutral in this perspective.
jof is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 09:39 AM   #5095
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
show me empirical evidence of addition of information in the genome through natural selection and mutation.
A very common mutation, in a lot of the plants we eat, is chromosome duplication.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 10:56 AM   #5096
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
show me empirical evidence of addition of information in the genome through natural selection and mutation.
Oh, GIBHOR, how about blue eyes?
Is that empirical enough for you?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 11:50 AM   #5097
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
please point out, how objective moral values can exist without God.
Enlightened self interest. I'd rather not be killed so other like thinking people get together and declare killing will not be allowed.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 12:03 PM   #5098
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i do not answer to posts where i am acused to be dishonest. If you do not give me the credit to be honest, it makes no sense to debate me.
I don't need a goddamned answer from you. This isn't up to debate you are purposefully cherry picking a quote. You've done this before and I've had to call you out on it.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 12:24 PM   #5099
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
The mechanism is called "evolution".
no kidding. Where is the empirical evidence to back up your claim ?


When you went to school, did your school not teach you about evolution?

Do you want to claim that only micro evolution happens?

What then is human evolution? Isn’t that what you call macro evolution?

You do know that since the time of Darwin in the 1860’s, the science research journals have been filled with the evidence of Human evolution?

All those thousands of scientists are wrong are they?

And you say, what? Do you claim instead that creationists like Michael Bethe are right to say that macro evolution never happens?

Well the creationist claims of Michael Behe and his friends were tested in court in the Dover trial. And not only were all the creationist claims ruled to be scientifically wrong, but the creationist defendents were also found to be fraudulent liars.

When you keep repeating all those same creationist claims here, you are repeating what has already been legally judged to be (a)wrong, and (b)deliberately dishonest.

Or are you going to claim that the Dover trial never happened either (as well as claiming human evolution never happened)?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 01:24 PM   #5100
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what else do they have, rather than just empty speculations ? do you not see, that you rely mostly on unprovable guesswork ?
Come on: they have the actual objects: fossilized bones of dinosaurs that have the same type of structure as bones of birds (both fossilized and living birds). So another one of your disproofs of evolution, that dinosaur bones are fundamentally different from bird bones, would be.... wrong. Wrong, like your statement that it was biologically impossible for dinosaurs to develop beaks, whereas there were an extraordinarily large number of beaked dinosaurs. Wrong like virtually all the "facts" you have provided as evidence against evolution.

Since you asked, I actually rely on a large number of verifiable sources for forming my views. But what if I instead told you that I rely on a single book, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design." It is, if you will, my Bible and I believe it is the inspired work of God, as told to Michael Shermer. I look around me and it explains so much about current biology and the facts that I can confirm by observation and experimentation. It gives my life meaning as the product of 3 billion years of adaptation and survival, and it gives me a moral foundation for my behavior (I depend on other people so I should treat them as I hope to be treated).

Yes, this one book describes events that the author himself was not present for, but it is a God-inspired work and I understand that the King James edition suffers the same limitation.

Yes, Michael Shermer has expressed political views that I disagree with, but he is unerring when it comes to his inspired writings on evolution, much as the Pope is in regard to Catholic teachings.

Can you argue with my unerring, God-inspired, explains all the facts as I see them, book?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 01:47 PM   #5101
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
rather than post a bunch of websites, how about you pick one issue, and present the core argument that convinces your case is true.
So we can have a closer look at it.
It has been done--you have ignored it.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 01:54 PM   #5102
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i am not a proponent of infinite regression, but of the existence of a eternal, uncreated God, that made the universe.
This is manifestly dishonest.

You say, in essence, nothing exists that is not created. Then you say, 'god' did not need to be created.

It is, by nature, an infinite regression (no matter how dishonestly you deny it, or how much you wave your hands), or special pleading ("nothing exists that was not created...except 'god' {and, oddly enough, only [i]your/I] 'god'...})"

And all of the is still OT to the title of the thread...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:10 PM   #5103
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
This is manifestly dishonest.

You say, in essence, nothing exists that is not created. Then you say, 'god' did not need to be created.

It is, by nature, an infinite regression (no matter how dishonestly you deny it, or how much you wave your hands), or special pleading ("nothing exists that was not created...except 'god' {and, oddly enough, only [i]your/I] 'god'...})"

And all of the is still OT to the title of the thread...
Pretty soon, Gibhor will have nobody to talk to but himself, and nobody to be dishonest to but himself.

Oh, wait...
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:18 PM   #5104
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
For someone who want us to provide Explanations, you certainly do not seem very interested in Explanations.

We CAN explain WHERE moral values come from! In summary: Morality is an emergent property of behavior within a society. There are quite a few ingredients that go into it, which scientists have started to unravel:

Moral values largely come from those around us. Though, there are also a few innate concepts of right and wrong that a normally developed person would have acquired, through natural selection.

And, a LOT of it is formulated in hindsight: That is, a good chunk of our personal morality is only formed AFTER we do something, as a justification for doing it, or a grounds for apologizing if we decided it was wrong.

Even religious morality is subject to this process! Those who believe their morality comes from God actually end up with their morality formed in the way we describe. Most will not admit that, and feel private shame about it. Others chalk it up to religious freedom: "You can believe anything you want about God, as long as you believe in God.", etc.

It might be scary to think about. But, relax: Humans have been doing it this way for millions of years! We do seem to get better at it, over time!

There might be some disagreement on this Forum about whether or not morality is Objective (in the scientific sense) or purely Subjective. I think those who say it is "subjective" often do not realize just how much of it develops on objective grounds. But, that is all beside the point.

The MOST IMPORTANT point about this discussion of morality is the following:

Scientists learn MORE about behavior when their attitude is like this:

"What aspects of life go into formulating our morals? Let us find out how much of it is innate, and how much culture provides! Let us figure out HOW morality can emerge through natural processes!"


Than they would like this: "Morality comes from God."

That second explanation does not really provide as deep an explanation as the first.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Also, when you get the chance, answer me this:

If MACRO-Evolution is a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for all of the success stories that involve utilizing MACRO-Evolution in some way?!

You can't just say "macro-evolution is not true....".

You have to account for scientists who have this attitude:

"Macro-evolution has been demonstrated to be true enough that we can use it to a certain reliable degree".


What do you say to them?

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Epigenetics is the ability to pass on heritable traits without explicitly relying on DNA mutations, but rather passing on expression profiles. These changes in expression profiles represent new information (new coding) that is achieved through DNA modifications that occur in the parent. (e.g., DNA methylation).
Epigenetics should be very damning to Creationism, for several other reasons.

It is another reason why we learn MORE about life by NOT assuming DNA is "information" in the Creationist's sense.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

Last edited by Wowbagger; 24th February 2013 at 02:21 PM.
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:19 PM   #5105
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Come on: they have the actual objects: fossilized bones of dinosaurs that have the same type of structure as bones of birds (both fossilized and living birds). So another one of your disproofs of evolution, that dinosaur bones are fundamentally different from bird bones, would be.... wrong.
The fact that the bones are made of the same material can be interpreted as well, that they have been created by the same God, that created dino's.
So, no hard evidence on hand.

http://www.icr.org/article/529/235/

Quote:
“It is obvious that the creation of bone required not one but a whole burst of mutations, all integrated to a single end—an incredible thing to happen by chance.”5 According to neo-Darwinism, the “earliest creatures” on the evolutionary scale such as corals, mollusks, and sponges, had no skeletons (bone), but then, inexplicably, animals with skeletons appear in the fossil record. The 1998 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, in addressing the abrupt appearance of classes and phyla of major animal groups at the Cambrian and Ordovician levels, states, “this must reflect a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem.” A problem for macroevolution, perhaps, but not for the Biblical creation model that would predict the abrupt appearance of major animal groups.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:21 PM   #5106
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The fact that the bones are made of the same material can be interpreted as well, that they have been created by the same God, that created dino's.
So, no hard evidence on hand.

http://www.icr.org/article/529/235/
Same type of material is not equivalent to the "same type of structure".
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:24 PM   #5107
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The deaths of 50 to 70 million people, the near total destruction of the German nation, as well as the devastation of many other nations. The Nazis were wrong because they inflicted death and pain on a massive scale based on nothing more than greed and their ridiculous notions of their own superiority to other human beings. The human race, as a whole, suffered because of their

You desperately want to believe that subjective morality means that "anything goes" and that there can't be any solid basis for moral codes. You are wrong. Subjective morality means that we admit that our morals are behaviors that have evolved along with us, and that these behaviors facilitate our survival and function as a social species. It means that we admit that we are responsible for our morality and that we can alter it if we find that we can no longer justify certain aspects of it. For example, a society can change from one in which it is regarded as just to kill our daughters for having sex to one in which our daughters are free to take ownership of their own lives and choose their own sexual partners. By claiming that your own morals are objectively dictated by a divine authority figure, you avoid having to justify or take responsibility for your own morality.
that is just your subjective evaluation of the facts. If someone has the oposit opinion on the issue, its just opinion against opinion. Everything becomes relative and subjective. It would be arrogant on your part to think your opinion is more valid than someone elses.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:30 PM   #5108
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is just your subjective evaluation of the facts. If someone has the oposit opinion on the issue, its just opinion against opinion. Everything becomes relative and subjective. It would be arrogant on your part to think your opinion is more valid than someone elses.
Using your reasoning, we are incapable of making a qualitative distinction between mozart and farts.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:45 PM   #5109
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Because my subjective morals say they were wrong. If morals are objective, how can you say killing your daughter for having sex is wrong?
GIBHOR, is killing your daughter for having premarital sex objectively moral or objectively immoral? How about murdering your neighbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:50 PM   #5110
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
rather than post a bunch of websites, how about you pick one issue, and present the core argument that convinces your case is true.
So we can have a closer look at it.
Okay, but you're the one asking for evidence, so which topic do you want evidence on? What do you think is least explainable by evolution?

Maybe it'd be better if you just read through the first link. Sure, it's 150 years out of date, but it's based on a huge amount of observation.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Have you even considered staying on topic?
I don't think that's possible in this thread.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 03:02 PM   #5111
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is just your subjective evaluation of the facts. If someone has the oposit opinion on the issue, its just opinion against opinion. Everything becomes relative and subjective. It would be arrogant on your part to think your opinion is more valid than someone elses.
Yes, and if a lot of people share the same subjective values they get to enforce them on others. We do this all the time, it's odd that you never seem to have noticed this. I presume you live in a dictatorship where you can never disagree with anyone about anything lest you are punished immediately right?

Because western nations actually use such a totally subjective system to govern themselves, and clearly you are unfamiliar with that practice.

But your murderer scenario keeps showing you the truth, there ARE people out there that do think that killing/raping/stealing is perfectly fine and that have no moral problems with it at all. In your fantasy these people do not exist. Clearly, reality disagrees with you.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 03:07 PM   #5112
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
A very common mutation, in a lot of the plants we eat, is chromosome duplication.
It also happens in humans. Duplication of the 21st chromosome is what causes Down Syndrome.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 04:10 PM   #5113
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is just your subjective evaluation of the facts. If someone has the oposit opinion on the issue, its just opinion against opinion. Everything becomes relative and subjective. It would be arrogant on your part to think your opinion is more valid than someone elses.
No.

It is an objective fact that the Nazis killed millions based on racial fantasies that are not supported by science. It is an objective fact that Germany and much of Europe were destroyed.

That this was a bad thing may be based on subjective human judgement, but the arguments used to justify this opinion are based on solid reasoning.

Ironically, the book that you claim to be your source of divinely dictated objective morality contains depictions of evils little different from what the Nazis did.

Joshua 11:10-15 Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and struck its king down with the sword. Before that time Hazor was the head of all those kingdoms. And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire. And all the towns of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and struck them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. But Israel burned none of the towns that stood on mounds except Hazor, which Joshua did burn. All the spoil of these towns, and the livestock, the Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed. As the Lord had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses.

1 Samuel 15:1-3 Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” ’

Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Exodus 32:25-29 When Moses saw that the people were running wild (for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. He said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbour.” ’ The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day. Moses said, ‘Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day.’
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 04:17 PM   #5114
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
...

So that is actually your real problem ??!! You think if God exists, than he wants to control your life, right ?
No, the thought is that whether or not god exists, humans erect myths about 'god' that are used to control believers in that god.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 05:44 PM   #5115
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thanks. The number of posters to which i will answer, shrinks.....
I see so when someone calls you on the inanity of your copy and paste, you flee, more blind robot parrot, you lack faith and run away.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 05:46 PM   #5116
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I see so when someone calls you on the inanity of your copy and paste, you flee, more blind robot parrot, you lack faith and run away.
Or he could just be getting worn out. The number of posts in this thread is absurd.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 06:24 PM   #5117
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
belief is the result of thinking.......
What is faith, and how is it acquired?
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 07:18 PM   #5118
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Or he could just be getting worn out. The number of posts in this thread is absurd.
I wonder if we should expect iteration 3 in about 6 months?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 07:26 PM   #5119
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is just your subjective evaluation of the facts. If someone has the oposit opinion on the issue, its just opinion against opinion. Everything becomes relative and subjective. It would be arrogant on your part to think your opinion is more valid than someone elses.
It would also be against reason to not be proponents for our opinion. Either way, subjective is the correct term in an absolute sense when the duality of objective and subjective is handled, but it doesn't remotely explain the relevant nuances to what's going on. Trying to criticize the subjective morality that is what's in evidence by only presenting attempts to demonize the subjective nature of it isn't going to get you far. Much like trying to criticize the definition of atheism with arguments that actually address the gnosticism/agnosticism aspect of the larger issue won't get one anywhere.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 08:18 PM   #5120
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,587
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
belief is the result of thinking.......
All thoughts are the result of thinking. That does not mean that all topics of thought are about real stuff. Fiction is the result of thinking too. Also premeditated murder.

Last edited by Tricky; 24th February 2013 at 08:19 PM.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.