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 30th May 2012, 08:03 AM   #2161
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 Dave Rogers View Post
it seems a little futile to use mere reality as a premise in a counter-argument.
Most religious people, today, are exposed to the idea that people have different beliefs and different moral codes than they do, even if they claim to believe in the same God.

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect religious folks to agree that a large part of morality comes from the society around them. Merely claiming God is the Ultimate source of objective morality is not sufficient to explain the discrepencies.

But, let's say that someone doesn't even recognize that:

It would still be absurd to argue that atheists do not have morality, because atheists claim to have a source for it.

It's a different source than one claimed by a religious person. But, a source that is compelling to them, anyway.

It is NOT moral relativism. It is NOT merely "subjective" or "anything goes". It is more like a secular social contract.

That is why the claims that atheists can't be moral fail. That is why those who make such claims are the ones being intellectually dishonest.
__________________
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; 30th May 2012 at 08:04 AM.
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 30th May 2012, 09:02 AM   #2162
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
To the above post

"within a 100 years or so there will be NO free oxygen in the air"

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff 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 30th May 2012, 09:07 AM   #2163
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
He has been doing this malarkey for years.

See here.
.
And when he comes to one of his threads, the number of persons he has on Ignore take up most of any page he might be reading.
I Ratant 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 30th May 2012, 09:10 AM   #2164
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
21 meter salute



.
supposed to be sequential....
I Ratant 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 30th May 2012, 09:11 AM   #2165
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
.
And when he comes to one of his threads, the number of persons he has on Ignore take up most of any page he might be reading.
I am rather tired of him spamming these looney sites.
dafydd 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 30th May 2012, 09:40 AM   #2166
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Oh, GIBHOR, why repeat the very quote that provoked my question? Don't tell me that your only reply you have on th subject.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
In any courtroom testimonies are permitted with the purpose of collecting circumstancial evidence. Why not in regard of miracles ?

http://www.precious-testimonies.com/...-j/HEIndex.htm
Why not, indeed?
Which of those testimonials would you like to discuss?
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
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 30th May 2012, 10:02 AM   #2167
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
In any courtroom testimonies are permitted with the purpose of collecting circumstancial evidence. Why not in regard of miracles ?
Because the standards of evidence in a courtroom are not those of science. If you wish to discuss this with lawyers, be my guest--I generally avoid them at all costs (ever try explaining taphonomy to a lawyer? It's an experience, I can assure you). However, if you do so you will be admitting that you've no interest in the facts of the matter. Lawyers and courtrooms are primarily interested in the procedures and formulas of law, not with the facts of a case. The very concept of getting off on a technicality is an explicite admission of this. The fact that information known to all parties can be dismissed because the paperwork wasn't properly filed is also proof of this difference, as science doesn't reject any data known to be true, no matter how it was collected (we do, however, reject the scientists who collected it--and if their actions violate the law we'll throw them to the wolves to make them stop, which is one reason why some medical research has been done by researchers operating and experimenting on themselves).

In science, technicalities are irrelevent; only the facts matter. And science has a very specific view of facts: they must be independently verifiable at minimum, and if there's experimental evidence that experiment must in principle at least be testable. If your argument is supported by such facts than it doesn't matter if you commit a minor error in presenting it. If it's unsupported by such facts it doesn't matter how well you follow procedures.
Dinwar 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 30th May 2012, 10:04 AM   #2168
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I have found plenty of goals in my life, I have purpose and meaning,.
http://www.bethinking.org/resources/...se-of-life.htm

Quote:
Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.
That is absurd, I don't not subscribe to Kantian metaphysics, 'meaning' has real world implications.

Some of the dumbest sophistry yet. All values can be reality based.

No need for superfluous dualism.
The rest of your post is just more straw.

Not real surprise.

Ethics and morals do not require god despite your foolish quotations.
__________________
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 30th May 2012, 10:45 AM   #2169
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
It occurs to me that the NON-naturalistic arguments presented, here, are incredibly arrogant and selfish. Should one really be compelled to base their "Best Explanation" on the idea that "I get to WIN if I have faith in non-materialistic things!" That is what seems to be implied by the reward system (heaven) one gets, if they follow a strict moral code set by some non-materialistic entity. It is arrogant, because of the insistence that only a few people get to be the authority on truth and moral behavior. It is selfish for reasons that are fairly obvious.

Would it not be even better if one approached life with the attitude of "I can do something that will help EVERYONE get a chance at winning in life, including myself amongst that crowd!"
This attitude seems to be reflected in the naturalists' insistence on improving the knowledge of the world. There is no presumption of moral authority. There is no assumption of absolute truths. We can all, collectively, work to make the world a better place! Of course, this refers to various technologies. But, this also includes finding ways to advance morality, so that fewer people need to suffer, over time. And, we can do it all without worrying about what some non-materialistic entity feels about that!

Granted, this is an argument from consequences. But, if one is determined to figure out which paradigm is the "Best" explanation for our existence, sometimes you have to look at the consequences of the approach.

(This is NOT meant to override the empirical reality of, nor the pragmatic approach of, the arguments I made earlier. This is just an extra bonus argument to throw on top of the others.)
__________________
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!!!!
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 30th May 2012, 11:33 AM   #2170
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
The religious make a god and try and fit the universe to that god.

Science finds information and tries to fit a theory to that information.

BIG DIFFERENCE, one lies and one is truthful and it isn't the religious ones that are truthful GIBHOR when they change information to make it fit their god.


Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

Last edited by Paulhoff; 30th May 2012 at 11:35 AM.
Paulhoff 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 30th May 2012, 12:11 PM   #2171
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Granted, this is an argument from consequences. But, if one is determined to figure out which paradigm is the "Best" explanation for our existence, sometimes you have to look at the consequences of the approach.
But, unlike Hell, such consequences are clearly demonstrable. Just imagine how many potential Newtons, Einsteins, Chandrasekhars and Maxwells have been lost to humanity because they were born into grinding poverty or died in their teens in some asinine war. These are precious intellectual resources that have been, and will be, lost to us forever. Our chances of avoiding extinction in a dangerous universe will be much greater if we can create a world in which everyone is able to contribute to to sum of human knowledge.
__________________
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 30th May 2012, 12:15 PM   #2172
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
But, unlike Hell, such consequences are clearly demonstrable. Just imagine how many potential Newtons, Einsteins, Chandrasekhars and Maxwells have been lost to humanity because they were born into grinding poverty or died in their teens in some asinine war. These are precious intellectual resources that have been, and will be, lost to us forever. Our chances of avoiding extinction in a dangerous universe will be much greater if we can create a world in which everyone is able to contribute to to sum of human knowledge.

Or because they had the nerve to be born female. One thing I find detestable about the so-called "objective morality" proposed in the Christian bible is that it is actually subjective, based on your gender. If the same principles applied to people of all genders, it would be somehwat closer to a truly objective standard. As it is, not so much. Blech.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 30th May 2012, 12:29 PM   #2173
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Or because they had the nerve to be born female. One thing I find detestable about the so-called "objective morality" proposed in the Christian bible is that it is actually subjective, based on your gender. If the same principles applied to people of all genders, it would be somehwat closer to a truly objective standard. As it is, not so much. Blech.
Yes. Had my wife been born just a hundred years earlier, she never could have earned the engineering degree that she has now. As Huxley said speaking in favor of offering women the same educational opportunities as men, "The "golden hair" will not curl less gracefully outside the head by reason of there being brains within".
__________________
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 30th May 2012, 03:53 PM   #2174
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by dlorde
**** happens - quite literally.

Mod Warningdo not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Lisa Simpson
TPTB are a little sensitive with Shakespeare's vocabulary, so I withdrew it all.

Life's too short.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 30th May 2012 at 05:03 PM.
dlorde 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 30th May 2012, 05:07 PM   #2175
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
TPTB are a little sensitive with Shakespeare's vocabulary, so I withdrew it all.

Life's too short.
Awww shame, I was about to add a lot to the conversation by quoting your paragraph on the GOL and saying "this".

__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 30th May 2012, 05:13 PM   #2176
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
On second thoughts, an equivalent, but less aesthetically pleasing substitute will do the job...

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
And what mechanism do you suggest to trigger the whole action ?
Simple probability. Statistical chance. If birds fly around crapping at random and you walk around where they fly, eventually you'll be crapped on. It's simple probability. Nobody asks 'what mechanism triggers the whole action?' because if it's possible and you give it enough time, it will probably happen. Crap happens - quite literally.

Quote:
its said that a event with odds bigger than one to 10^50 probably will never happen.
Oh, please; that kind of statement is meaningless without context. Suppose there was a rare interaction between water molecules that had a probability of occurrence of one in 10^50 for any two water molecules in a year. Would it ever happen? Well there are about 7.5x10^24 molecules in an 8 ounce glass of water. How many 8oz glasses are there in the oceans of the Earth? in all the hundreds of billions of planets in the galaxy? in all the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe? Given that the universe has had water for over 10 billion years, don't you think such an event would have happened many times?

Quote:
Scientific inquiry shows us quit the opposite : the more and deeper we go to find out about biology, chemistry, physics etc. the more we realize, that all that surrounds us is unimaginably more complex, than it was thought in the past. When we look to a cell, we cannot else than be amazed about its complexity, beauty, functionality, geniality. Description usually use words as factory, machine, interconnected network, transport, etc.
What it shows us is how simple rules can give rise to the most mind-boggling complexity - fractals, ubiquitous in nature and astonishing in maths, such as the Mandelbrot set; simple flocking and shoaling rules, common in nature, and formalized in cellular automata such as Conway's Game of Life - which has been shown to support universal computation (yes, programmable computers have been constructed using CGOL), etc. The more we learn, the more we find complexity has unexpected simplicity at it's core. The study of the emergence of complexity from simplicity has become a major field in its own right.

Quote:
intelligence exists in a spiritual realm, not material, it cannot have arose by matter. that's what is known as Einsteins gulf.
Intelligence just labels certain levels of complexity of behaviour. There is no evidence to support, or rational reason to believe in an objective 'spiritual realm'. Einstein's Gulf was just an expression of the difficulty of reconciling the measurable objective external reality with our abstract informational representations of it. Nothing to do with spirituality.

Just sayin'
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 30th May 2012 at 05:17 PM.
dlorde 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 30th May 2012, 05:14 PM   #2177
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
My dad and grandfather are both civil engineers. Priests stopped telling my town that we were made by an all-knowing Creator--the list of structural and design flaws in the human body got to be longer than the list of Bible quotes!
make it better, if you can.....
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 30th May 2012, 05:14 PM   #2178
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Awww shame, I was about to add a lot to the conversation by quoting your paragraph on the GOL and saying "this".

Thanks for righting my boat

Ironic that I was being oversensitive in response to censorship
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 30th May 2012 at 05:32 PM.
dlorde 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 30th May 2012, 05:18 PM   #2179
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Why did the morals in the Bible change over time?
Have the ten commandments changed over time ? or the first commandment of Jesus ? Fact that the civil laws of the Pentateuch are not valid for us anymore, does not mean, morals have changed.
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 30th May 2012, 05:20 PM   #2180
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Funny-I once thought Gibhor was interested in a real debate, but now I think he just wants us to dance for him like monkeys as he yanks our chain. I do appreciate, however,what I learn from the other partipants in this thread! Thank you.
If you held yourself as a critical thinker, and if you are a biologist, you could have learned from Pitmans website about the irreducible complexity. Since you simply ignored the presented facts over there, you just show that you are not here to learn, but to find reasons to confirm what you want to believe.
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 30th May 2012, 05:20 PM   #2181
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
make it better, if you can.....
Much of surgery physically does just that (e.g. hare lip).

Much of pharmacology chemically does just that.

Much of psychiatry - hmm - perhaps that's enough for now...
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 30th May 2012 at 05:21 PM.
dlorde 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 30th May 2012, 05:23 PM   #2182
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Have the ten commandments changed over time ? or the first commandment of Jesus ? Fact that the civil laws of the Pentateuch are not valid for us anymore, does not mean, morals have changed.
How those ten commandments are enforced, or even taken seriously, has. Tell me, would you kill a child for not honoring its parents?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

Last edited by thaiboxerken; 30th May 2012 at 05:24 PM.
thaiboxerken 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 30th May 2012, 05:23 PM   #2183
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by DC View Post
not even if your silly god would exist would his moral standard be an objective standard. such a thing does and cannot exist. Morals are always subjective. its already in the definition of moral.
do you think it is objectively wrong , someone to eat someone else face ?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/lsd-cannib...5/30/id/440646

if so, based on what can you say that ?
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 30th May 2012, 05:25 PM   #2184
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
do you think it is objectively wrong , someone to eat someone else face ?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/lsd-cannib...5/30/id/440646

if so, based on what can you say that ?
Wow, you are right.
Without god, you'd be eating faces.. THat is the only thing keeping you from eating faces.
You've convinced me.
__________________
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 30th May 2012, 05:26 PM   #2185
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Doing away with old-fashioned ideas that have to bearings on modern society, etc. Which, in turn, helps them drive prosperity for everyone else. But, that's besides the point.
That means, if i do not help others to be more prosperous, i am immoral ?
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 30th May 2012, 05:32 PM   #2186
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The above is both arrogant and obtuse. Saying that moral codes are subjective is not the same as saying that there is no morality.
If morality is subjective, then that means indeed , morality does not exist. Since anyone can make up its own standard of morality. If i think torturing small babies is moral, how can you tell me i am wrong, if morals are just subjective ??



Quote:
It is also not the same as saying that there are no valid reasons for the moral codes that we have.
there might be good reasons, but Hitler had also good reasons to kill the Jews. Since based on your view morals are subjective, based on what can you say Hitler was wrong ?

Quote:
There is a very good reason to morally prohibit behaviors like murder, theft, rape and assault.
Hitler had also good reasons to make ethnical clensing. Was he wrong ?

Quote:
We are social creatures who function and survive in communities. Without certain codes of behavior those communities will collapse.
so what ?

Quote:
Why don't you explain to us your subjective reasons for rejecting your god's commands to kill members of your own family for having sex or choosing a different religion.
As said, the commands of the old testament, directed to the jews of that time, are not valid anymore for us.
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 30th May 2012, 05:33 PM   #2187
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
make it better, if you can.....
I'm in the business of figuring out how it got this way, not figuring out how to fix your god's errors. I'm a reverse engineer, not a civil one.

I'll also note that this is just another version of Argument from Personal Incredulity. GIBHOR can't think of a better way for the human body to work, therefore his god did it. Never mind the reams of evidence and piles of bones we have to the contrary.

Quote:
do you think it is objectively wrong , someone to eat someone else face ?
Well, provided that the other person didn't attack anyone first, I'd say yes. I've given my basis in this thread--which you've ignored, I can only assume because it's inconvenient for your "Only Christians have an objective moral system" argument.

Quote:
If you held yourself as a critical thinker, and if you are a biologist, you could have learned from Pitmans website about the irreducible complexity.
I spoke to a biologist about the flagellum once. She was an honest-to-goodness molecular biologist in charge of multiple electron microscopes, specifically looking at flagella development in specific parasitic lineages. Given that she showed me pictures of the development of the flagellum, I'm going to side with her, thanks. She actually has a Ph.D. in a relevant field, as well as numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals. You've got a loony with a website.
Dinwar 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 30th May 2012, 05:36 PM   #2188
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
If morality is subjective, then that means indeed , morality does not exist.
Oh my God. You are teaching me soo much.
Things that are subjective, do not exist.

That means, there is no such thing as Art, Music, beauty, quality....


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
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 30th May 2012, 05:36 PM   #2189
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post

Okay so atheists are inherently immoral because we don't have a big invisible sky wizard to tell us what to do. Let's run with that concept.
that is not what i said. What i say is, without objective moral values, there cannot be good, and wrong. Everything becomes relative, and depends always only on each individuals standpoint. You cannot blame the guy in Miami for eating someone else face. He maibe did it , because he thought that would be the best thing someone could do on earth. How could you blame him wrong, if morality is not objective ?
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 30th May 2012, 05:36 PM   #2190
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
If morality is subjective, it does not exist? ! Doors that rule apply to favorites as well? What about art?

The fact is that your claim is nonsense.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 30th May 2012, 05:37 PM   #2191
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is not what i said. What i say is, without objective moral values, there cannot be good, and wrong. Everything becomes relative, and depends always only on each individuals standpoint. You cannot blame the guy in Miami for eating someone else face. He maibe did it , because he thought that would be the best thing someone could do on earth. How could you blame him wrong, if morality is not objective ?
Its my subjective opinion that what he did was wrong. I'm glad most people share that subjective opinion.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 30th May 2012, 05:38 PM   #2192
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
How those ten commandments are enforced, or even taken seriously, has. Tell me, would you kill a child for not honoring its parents?
Of course not. Neither demands the bible us to do so. You should read the bible first, and only afterwards asking questions.....
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 30th May 2012, 05:39 PM   #2193
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Of course not. Neither demands the bible us to do so. You should read the bible first, and only afterwards asking questions.....
I would suggest you take your own advice. You go take a university-level course on evolution, genetics, paleontology, and geology, then come back and chat. Until you do, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
Dinwar 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 30th May 2012, 05:41 PM   #2194
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
do you think it is objectively wrong , someone to eat someone else face ?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/lsd-cannib...5/30/id/440646

if so, based on what can you say that ?
Where does the Bible speak of face-eating?
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 30th May 2012, 05:41 PM   #2195
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
That means, if i do not help others to be more prosperous, i am immoral ?
No, not necessarily. (Though, it would be immoral to deliberately destroy one's prosperity without sufficient reasons.)

But, you have a better chance of being prosperous, yourself, if you contribute to the prosperity of society. It's a quasi-selfish-yet-altruistic trend that is starting to get noticed by more people.

Game theory calls it "Tit-for-Tat". It is more commonly referred to as "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine". Two people get parasites removed from their backs, instead of neither one.

I suspect that naturalistic attitudes tend to lend themselves better to delivering on this trend. Since THIS life is all there is, there is motivation to make the best of it, and to live life for the long run. Long run assumes you will be around people for a long time, so you better generally be nice to them.

On the otherhand, one who basically puts their own life into the hands of a non-naturalistic entity, in the hopes of living well in some sort of afterlife, will tend to discount the future more sharply. This doesn't do anyone any good: Not the beliver, and not anyone they know. The thrill of acquiring new knowledge is less important, as well.

It is NOT immoral to waste your life doing nothing for society. But, you are missing out on maximizing your life, and perhaps even your legacy after it.

Of course, this is NOT A LAW of any sort. You will find exceptions and caveats and such in various places. But, it is a general trend we find in history.
__________________
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!!!!
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 30th May 2012, 05:41 PM   #2196
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Of course not. Neither demands the bible us to do so. You should read the bible first, and only afterwards asking questions.....
You read the ten commandments but ignore the stuff that comes after it which describes the penalties for violating them...who should be reading the Bible here? Take your own advice.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 30th May 2012, 05:42 PM   #2197
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Oh, GIBHOR, why repeat the very quote that provoked my question? Don't tell me that your only reply you have on th subject.
well, my quote should make it clear to any rational person, that the solar moon earth system is finely tuned to host life. And life is fine tuned as well to its environment. both interact together.
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 30th May 2012, 05:44 PM   #2198
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I would suggest you take your own advice. You go take a university-level course on evolution, genetics, paleontology, and geology, then come back and chat. Until you do, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
If you feel i have not enough knowledge to debate the mentioned issues, you should search for someone else to debate.
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 30th May 2012, 05:45 PM   #2199
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
well, my quote should make it clear to any rational person, that the solar moon earth system is finely tuned to host life. And life is fine tuned as well to its environment. both interact together.
it is not tuned, it just happens to be a good environment for life at this time.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 30th May 2012, 05:48 PM   #2200
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
If you feel i have not enough knowledge to debate the mentioned issues, you should search for someone else to debate.
Don't stop posting. You are teaching me soo much.


Originally Posted by joobz View Post
GIBHOR, You are doing an excellent job.
You've now convinced me that
1.) You would be highly immoral without objective morality.
2.) fullerenes are way too complex to occur from random events. It is clear that god must be involved in combustion.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Wow, you have convinced me even further. I now know that we can only be truly moral if we know we will be punished for doing bad and rewarded for doing good. To be truly moral, one must receive personal gain from moral actions.

Keep preaching. I'm a believer!!!
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
WoW!!!!
You are really getting a convert here.
I now believe that that the atmosphere was fine tuned to 21% oxygen so that we may live on earth. clearly any deviation from this value would result in our death.
This is why I know that Denver doesn't exist. After all, people couldn't possible live there as it has an equivalent 18% oxygen content.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...51#post8323651

I am learning so much about the world from you.
__________________
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
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 02:27 AM.
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.