|
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. |
24th February 2013, 07:54 AM | #5081 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
That's right. Although moral standards can still be based on objective facts.
Quote:
By the way, who was lying, Jesus or Paul?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 07:57 AM | #5082 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
24th February 2013, 08:00 AM | #5083 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 08:21 AM | #5084 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 08:22 AM | #5085 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 08:24 AM | #5086 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 08:30 AM | #5087 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 08:35 AM | #5088 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 08:50 AM | #5089 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
24th February 2013, 09:00 AM | #5090 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 09:00 AM | #5091 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 09:04 AM | #5092 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 09:07 AM | #5093 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
24th February 2013, 09:23 AM | #5094 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
24th February 2013, 09:39 AM | #5095 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
24th February 2013, 10:56 AM | #5096 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
24th February 2013, 11:50 AM | #5097 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
24th February 2013, 12:03 PM | #5098 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th February 2013, 12:24 PM | #5099 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
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)? |
24th February 2013, 01:24 PM | #5100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
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? |
24th February 2013, 01:47 PM | #5101 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th February 2013, 01:54 PM | #5102 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 02:10 PM | #5103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
24th February 2013, 02:18 PM | #5104 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
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. 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? 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!!!! |
|
24th February 2013, 02:19 PM | #5105 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
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:
|
24th February 2013, 02:21 PM | #5106 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 02:24 PM | #5107 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
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.
|
24th February 2013, 02:30 PM | #5108 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 02:45 PM | #5109 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
24th February 2013, 02:50 PM | #5110 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
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. I don't think that's possible in this thread. |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
24th February 2013, 03:02 PM | #5111 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
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. |
24th February 2013, 03:07 PM | #5112 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
24th February 2013, 04:10 PM | #5113 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 04:17 PM | #5114 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
|
|
24th February 2013, 05:44 PM | #5115 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 05:46 PM | #5116 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
24th February 2013, 06:24 PM | #5117 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
|
|
24th February 2013, 07:18 PM | #5118 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
24th February 2013, 07:26 PM | #5119 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
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. |
|
24th February 2013, 08:18 PM | #5120 |
Briefly immortal
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,587
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|