Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

fungotheclown, a perfect username if ever I saw one, wrote-

Quote:

I am truly worried and deeply disturbed if the only reason you find those atrocious acts wrong is because your religion tells you it is so.

Our brains have been conditioned that way. There's nothing we can do about it.

Do your knees knock at the thought that you have been conditioned?

Dearie, dearie me. The whole of the evolutionary range had not been conditioned.

Enjoy!

I'm staying conditioned.

0 Replies

You're staying a brainwashed coward.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Project all you like pal. It makes no differnce to me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think the confusion originates with your understanding of what is a 'natural process.'

parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

You are comparing objects that are 'green' with those that are 'green and blue' and saying it's not inaccurate to say that both groups are green.

But naturalism doesn't work that way.

If you introduce a supernatural element, it is no longer a natural process. Period.

I'd be interested to hear what some of our other proponents of naturalism have to say on this point, but I suspect they will (reluctantly) back me up on it.

'God guiding the process of evolution' is not at all what they mean when referring to a 'natural process.'

No, I think the confusion enters in that if we follow your statement to it's logical conclusion then you have refuted hundreds of years of church teachings and arguments.

You say a process that God has been involved in can't be natural.
Since God created the universe then nothing in the universe can be natural.
That means everything in the universe is supernatural.
Of course if everything in nature is supernatural then any study of nature such as scientific laws must by your argument be the study of the supernatural. Thus you have refuted any argument in which you attempt to use scientific laws because the laws are about the supernatural and therefore apply to outside the universe as well.

Since all of nature is supernatural that means you are supernatural.
Since you think the supernatural signifies God that means you think you are God.

I don't think anyone can have a doubt that you have a Messianic complex as you attempt to save the world from rational thought.

But as to your argument that something can not be natural if it is also supernatural, I suggest you go read one of the great thinkers of Christian history, Thomas Aquinas. The essence of an object, which includes math, is not limited to one thing. No one will back you up on this one real life, not even the church. To claim the inclusion of any of God's work makes something supernatural is downright silly and not able to be supported by you without word smithing of the worst kind.

0 Replies

onthestreet wrote:

Hey Parados: That little kid in the picture fits you quite nicely. I trust the diaper you're wearing is also a right good fit, and properly rigged for a right good load.

In my case, it is only my avatar that resembles a child.

Just in case you missed it, I just dissed you. :wink:

0 Replies

Like I've said before, I have a strong bias for facts. Go ahead and put your trust in whatever you want. You are entitled to look and sound as foolish as you desire.

T
K
O

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

I don't think anyone can have a doubt that you have a Messianic complex as you attempt to save the world from rational thought.

Somebody has to. Or at least try. Rational thought suggests than humans should be wiped off the face of the earth at the earliest opportunity as a serious threat to the myriad other life forms.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

parados wrote-

Quote:
I don't think anyone can have a doubt that you have a Messianic complex as you attempt to save the world from rational thought.

Somebody has to. Or at least try. Rational thought suggests than humans should be wiped off the face of the earth at the earliest opportunity as a serious threat to the myriad other life forms.

No one ever considered your thoughts to be rational spendi.

That does give a whole new meaning to your last sentence.

0 Replies

Spendi, you are qualified to speak on rational thought.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

No matter how often the Setantas of the world tell themselves that all moral judgements are subjective, they cannot dodge the fact that they know that some things are just wrong -- regardless of anybody's opinion.

They try to convince themselves, fighting this inward appeal to an objective morality.......

.....but they cannot escape it. They know that some things are right and some things are wrong.

They know that (to be consistent with their stated position) they should allow whatever moral choices others want to make.

But they can't. They simply can't.

This is your typical bullshit, and it is slander as well.

I have always stated that i believe in right and wrong, and i've told you that many, many times. I've told you many, many times that what i believe to be right, and what i believe to be wrong does not change from one situation to another, nor do i consider it to be conditioned by historical context or cultural context. You are willfully misrepresenting what i believe, and you are doing so because you a compulsive liar.

I simply point out that i know my judgment of what is right and what is wrong is subjective, and don't appeal to some imaginary friend superstition to authorize what i believe. I've told you that many times as well. Your problem is that you've got this snotty, self-righteous little speech all worked up, and you can't bring yourself to abandon it, and to acknowledge that it doesn't apply to me, or to anything i've ever written here on the subject of morality.

Bullshit artist.

Liar.

Moron.

0 Replies

Hey, Setanta. I sure enjoy trading posts with you better now that we no longer engage about anything spiritual or religious.

Damn you're fierce.

0 Replies

Morality is a subjective matter, ethics on the other hand are measureable and objective, at least they should be.

Right and wrong mean differet things in terms of morals and ethics.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

fungotheclown, a perfect username if ever I saw one, wrote-

Quote:
I am truly worried and deeply disturbed if the only reason you find those atrocious acts wrong is because your religion tells you it is so.

Our brains have been conditioned that way. There's nothing we can do about it.

Do your knees knock at the thought that you have been conditioned?

Dearie, dearie me. The whole of the evolutionary range had not been conditioned.

Enjoy!

I'm staying conditioned.

This doesn't make any sense. It now sounds like you are saying that morality comes from conditioning rather than from evolution or religion?

There are lots of things that I have been conditioned to do. I don't think morality is one of them. Maybe on some of the details, but for gross moral choices, it is instinctual. Even a child tries to make amends when they hurt you.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

I am truly worried and deeply disturbed if the only reason you find those atrocious acts wrong is because your religion tells you it is so.

I don't recall anyone saying this.

Speaking for myself, my conscience tells me these things are wrong, and my beliefs (my religion) is in agreement with this.

For others, there is a conflict. Their conscience tells them these things are wrong, but their belief in subjective morality tells them that NOTHING is really wrong. It's just their opinion, that's all.

0 Replies

Real Life and Spendius, I think you are seeing conflict where none exists. My conscience and my beliefs tell me they are wrong as well. The difference is, I pick my beliefs based on their reason and merit.

I believe in evolution, but I don't use evolution as the basis for my moral standards; I base those on my values and on what will bring about the greater social good. You're basing yours on what gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
No matter how often the Setantas of the world tell themselves that all moral judgements are subjective, they cannot dodge the fact that they know that some things are just wrong -- regardless of anybody's opinion.

They try to convince themselves, fighting this inward appeal to an objective morality.......

.....but they cannot escape it. They know that some things are right and some things are wrong.

They know that (to be consistent with their stated position) they should allow whatever moral choices others want to make.

But they can't. They simply can't.

This is your typical bullshit, and it is slander as well.

I have always stated that i believe in right and wrong, and i've told you that many, many times. I've told you many, many times that what i believe to be right, and what i believe to be wrong does not change from one situation to another, nor do i consider it to be conditioned by historical context or cultural context. You are willfully misrepresenting what i believe, and you are doing so because you a compulsive liar.

I simply point out that i know my judgment of what is right and what is wrong is subjective, and don't appeal to some imaginary friend superstition to authorize what i believe. I've told you that many times as well. Your problem is that you've got this snotty, self-righteous little speech all worked up, and you can't bring yourself to abandon it, and to acknowledge that it doesn't apply to me, or to anything i've ever written here on the subject of morality.

Bullshit artist.

Liar.

Moron.

If right and wrong are subjective, how can you trash others for incest, pedophilia, etc ?

Are they not allowed a subjective morality as you demand for yourself?

If all morality is simply one's own opinion why are you right and they wrong? Just because you say so?

You know that incest and pedophilia are wrong. They certainly are. But you cannot bring yourself to admit that inwardly you appeal to an objective morality to make that statement.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Real Life and Spendius, I think you are seeing conflict where none exists. My conscience and my beliefs tell me they are wrong as well. The difference is, I pick my beliefs based on their reason and merit.

I believe in evolution, but I don't use evolution as the basis for my moral standards; I base those on my values and on what will bring about the greater social good. You're basing yours on what gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

And you always KNOW what will bring about the 'greater social good' ?

Or is it just your opinion that it will do so?

0 Replies

I don't always know, but I have to make a decision, so I do so to the best of my ability. Are you arguing that I should avoid making moral choices because of uncertainty of outcome? Where are you going with this?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Potts states that 55% of scientists take a naturalistic approach.....

Do you agree that he stated this?
Of course he stated it.

Quote:

......... i.e . 45% do not.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable understanding of his statement?
That is a leap in logic on your part and is not reasonable at all.

I have 100 balls here 55 are green.

Does that prove that the other 45 are not green?

No, it doesn't. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something must be the negative based on a single statement.

I have 100 balls, 55 are green, 40 are green and blue and 5 are blue.
Because I said 55 are green does NOT mean that 45 have no green at all on them.

You have your opinion of natural/supernatural but Pott's statement in no way proves he shares your opinion. You are NOT basing that statement on Pott's words alone but your liberal interpretation of what you think he meant.

I think the confusion originates with your understanding of what is a 'natural process.'

parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

You are comparing objects that are 'green' with those that are 'green and blue' and saying it's not inaccurate to say that both groups are green.

But naturalism doesn't work that way.

If you introduce a supernatural element, it is no longer a natural process. Period.

I'd be interested to hear what some of our other proponents of naturalism have to say on this point, but I suspect they will (reluctantly) back me up on it.

'God guiding the process of evolution' is not at all what they mean when referring to a 'natural process.'

No one will back you up on this one real life

We shall see.

0 Replies

RL, show me how Christian morality is superior to another individual's who is non-religous, without using your standard of morality.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know