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

Quote:

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.

Actually, I am going to back Real Life on this one. The only way you can reasonably claim to have a god guide evolution and still call it a natural law is if you were to claim that god set up the laws of nature such that evolution would occur, and even then it would be kind of shaky.

Good job Real Life.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

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?

Earlier you stated:

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.

yet your own moral choices are based on nothing but your own opinion.

What makes your opinion superior to anyone else's that you should be 'deeply disturbed' if someone should disagree with your opinion?

What gives your opinion such great weight that others dare not go contrary to it?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

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

My point , Deist , is that those who claim to believe in subjective morality always default at some point to an objective morality anyway.

There is always going to be something regarding which they will say 'it's just wrong no matter whether you think so or not'.

Thus they deny subjective morality in practice.

0 Replies

Quote:

fungotheclown wrote:
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?

Earlier you stated:

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.

yet your own moral choices are based on nothing but your own opinion.

What makes your opinion superior to anyone else's that you should be 'deeply disturbed' if someone should disagree with your opinion?

What gives your opinion such great weight that others dare not go contrary to it?

Because my opinions are being based on facts. I look at all the information that I have, and I try to decide what will result in the best outcome for all those involved. You try to think about what the bible says you should do. Your moral decisions apparently aren't made based upon your opinion, but on that of a deity that in all likelihood doesn't exist. Please explain to me how you have the superior system.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Quote:
fungotheclown wrote:
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?

Earlier you stated:

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.

yet your own moral choices are based on nothing but your own opinion.

What makes your opinion superior to anyone else's that you should be 'deeply disturbed' if someone should disagree with your opinion?

What gives your opinion such great weight that others dare not go contrary to it?

Because my opinions are being based on facts.

No. Your opinions are based on what you think WILL OCCUR in the future.

You attempt to divine what will happen , and thus what will produce the greater societal good IN THE FUTURE.

You don't know the future, thus you cannot refer to it as 'fact'.

You are guessing. Fortune telling, if you will.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Quote:
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.

Actually, I am going to back Real Life on this one. The only way you can reasonably claim to have a god guide evolution and still call it a natural law is if you were to claim that god set up the laws of nature such that evolution would occur, and even then it would be kind of shaky.

Good job Real Life.

Thank you sir. You are too kind.

Yes I understand your point regarding a deistic view, i.e. God setting up natural laws and letting them take their course.

However the statement we have been discussing implies not deism, but theism of a more active sort -- 'God guided the process of evolution'.

From my understanding, this type of intervention by God would not be consistent with the definition of naturalism.

I appreciate your input. Feel free to continue to disagree with me on other matters. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:
Quote:
fungotheclown wrote:
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?

Earlier you stated:

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.

yet your own moral choices are based on nothing but your own opinion.

What makes your opinion superior to anyone else's that you should be 'deeply disturbed' if someone should disagree with your opinion?

What gives your opinion such great weight that others dare not go contrary to it?

Because my opinions are being based on facts.

No. Your opinions are based on what you think WILL OCCUR in the future.

You attempt to divine what will happen , and thus what will produce the greater societal good IN THE FUTURE.

You don't know the future, thus you cannot refer to it as 'fact'.

You are guessing. Fortune telling, if you will.

Incorrect, we base these things on what has happened in the past. For what has not happened before, we create a facsimile out of past experiances and attempt to sew them together.

The past is fact.

So when Fungo says he bases his off of fact, I think he knows better than you.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
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

My point , Deist , is that those who claim to believe in subjective morality always default at some point to an objective morality anyway.

There is always going to be something regarding which they will say 'it's just wrong no matter whether you think so or not'.

Thus they deny subjective morality in practice.

So then are you trying to claim that morality must be objective? If you were saying that our basis for for our morals is intuitive and based on rational thought, I'd agree, but I suspect that you would still put your coin in the precher's pocket.

You're idea of morality runs into a problem when two viewpoints on an issue conflict.

Say a religoius viewpoint versus a objective viewpoint on homosexuality.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
fungotheclown wrote:
Quote:
fungotheclown wrote:
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?

Earlier you stated:

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.

yet your own moral choices are based on nothing but your own opinion.

What makes your opinion superior to anyone else's that you should be 'deeply disturbed' if someone should disagree with your opinion?

What gives your opinion such great weight that others dare not go contrary to it?

Because my opinions are being based on facts.

No. Your opinions are based on what you think WILL OCCUR in the future.

You attempt to divine what will happen , and thus what will produce the greater societal good IN THE FUTURE.

You don't know the future, thus you cannot refer to it as 'fact'.

You are guessing. Fortune telling, if you will.

Incorrect, we base these things on what has happened in the past. For what has not happened before, we create a facsimile out of past experiances and attempt to sew them together.

The past is fact.

So when Fungo says he bases his off of fact, I think he knows better than you.

T
K
O

Your knowledge, even of the past, is quite limited and often just consists of your perspective alone.

What makes your perspective 'correct' and that of others (if it differs from yours ) incorrect?

What if they make moral choices different from yours because their perspective tells them that it is best?

If a child grew up in an incestuous relationship and always felt loved and cared for , he/she might consider it 'normal' or even 'good' .

Why would your opinion be better than his/hers?

Morality that is based on opinion will quickly fall into quagmires such as this.

And no matter what, I've always seen moral relativists default at some point to an objective standard . They always deny the validity of another's opinion if they feel strongly enough about their own.

Moral relativism is unsustainable internally, in addition to being logically inconsistent.

The position 'no behavior violates a moral absolute' is a walking contradiction.

It states, in absolute terms, that moral absolutes do not exist.

0 Replies

Look, I'm wight and you're wong, simply because you're wight and I'm wong. Yup, that's why. This is also why perspective on moral choices are so subjective to substantial matter that oozes within childrens' diapers, so they can't ascend to the superconscience of a universal law. What makes one's perspective correct is if it's attuned to the universal energy and purpose and program of God over us all, our Father. That energy and purpose and program extends down to earth, to a man. Lacking a focus on that, you're like children on a carrousel, round and round and round you go.

"God doth not walk in crooked paths" (D&C 3:2, Is.45:2), and His angels are "joined one to another and turn not, but everyone goeth straight forward" (Ezek.1:9).

Now that is moral absolute.

Street

0 Replies

a god guiding evolution is a wish, a conclusion based on NO evidence. Its a position of an argument that, in the total, has employed NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to attain.
. SO claiming that a god directed evolution is an easy conclusion because it conveniently doesnt have to have any scientific discipline behind it.
Its merely the institutionalization of a"spaghetti monster" story.

Maintaining a belief in any of the CReation myths requires keeping your stories very tight and without any detail, because detailed scientific information always breaks the myth apart.

0 Replies

Quote:

But no matter how I scratch my head I cannot imagine what a convinced atheist evolutionist has against any of those things (rape,incest etc) assuming the minors have come of age biologically.

Maybe it is due to a Christian unconscious. I have a book, written by an American academic, I think, about Freud's Christian unconscious.

We haven't had a proper response from an atheist to that yet.

What reasons does an atheist who believes in evolution theory have against any damn thing at all other than those things which threaten his survival and reproductive success which is what evolution says are the only things that matter. He should be in favour rape surely and even moreso for one that causes conception.

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

I simply point out that I know my judgement of what is right and wrong is subjective, and don't appeal to some imaginary friend superstition to authorize what I believe.

That's moral relativism at its most dilute. Moral relativism at the Ladies Home Cooking Classes actually. An affectation.

What difference does it make whether Setanta denies appealing to an IFS when he was conditioned by people who did appeal to that "superstition". I presume he accepts that he has been conditioned. The result is the same. He's a Christian whichever way you look at it. His denial is merely to make him feel better about himself.

A Christian who denies being a Christian is as bad as Peter when he denied knowing Jesus for personal reasons and if personal reasons have priority well then-anything goes. Doesn't a victorious army raping the females of the losers bring new blood into their strain. Was it rape for American servicemen to use PX supplies to get sex from starving German women in 1945-6-7 etc?

I'm not arguing here. I just want to know how an atheist can have any moral or ethical position on any matter. And if he has been conditioned by people who were appealing to the IFS how can he claim not to be appealing to it himself outside of sophistry or by saying that his conditioning was faulty.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

a god guiding evolution is a wish, a conclusion based on NO evidence.

Not a wish so much as a prayer. There is evidence that prayer is beneficial. The power of prayer is a cliche and cliches contain the collective wisdom of the group.

I would bet money that people who pray genuinely have stronger immune systems than people who scoff at the idea. How to measure that is simply a sociological matter but I seem to remember that Durkheim showed that suicide rates were lower in believers than in non believers. Dare anyone attempt to check out susceptibility to sickness and who gains from increasing sickness if not the medical profession and others who promote unbelief. Biologists obviously. The military have other priorities. Sickness is a dead loss to the military which might explain their religious orientation.

What fm means by "NO evidence" is no evidence he has seen and he can be assumed to have not looked into anything which might challenge his position.

And he capitalises the word "no" because he thinks we can't read properly as if he needs such emphasis himself. Another projection.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

farmerman wrote:

a god guiding evolution is a wish, a conclusion based on NO evidence

To the point, is 'God guided the process of evolution' a statement that is descriptive of a natural process, fm?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

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.

The more constantly someone feeds me the same old bullshit, and especially when courtesy has not worked, and most especially when you have some clown like "real life" who consistently lies about what those with whom he "debates" have said--the more likely i am to savage such an idiot.

It amazes me that you can respond to someone in a calm and rational manner, and yet they will ignore everything you say, and willfully and consistently misrepresent what you have written--and then deplore it when you point out that they are liars and morons. What do they expect?

This clown "real life" is a perfect example. There is absolutely no point at which i "default" to a position which says: "It's just wrong." I've told him time and again that my views of right and wrong are not subject to editing, nor are they based on some imaginary friend superstition, and that the difference between his position and mine is that i recognize and acknowledge that my position is subject, while he cobbles together a fairy tale to provide outside authority for his position. His only rhetorical resort in that circumstance is to make false claims about what i've written on this topic. I used to respond patiently and courteously, but it does not good, so now i simply tell it like it is with regard to the member "real life."

He's a moron. He's a liar.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Actually, I am going to back Real Life on this one. The only way you can reasonably claim to have a god guide evolution and still call it a natural law is if you were to claim that god set up the laws of nature such that evolution would occur, and even then it would be kind of shaky.

You have just paraphrased what was said by more than one respondent to the survey. So natural law it is even if you think it is shaky.

Quote:

Good job Real Life.

It seems even fungo thinks that it could be natural based on the answers given.

Of course if something can't be natural because God set it up then the universe can't be natural at all. If you believe in God then there can be no such thing as a natural world by this thinking. Something that flies in the face of the entire history of studying nature. Most of it done by those that did believe in God.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

By pointing out that it violates the social contract, without which we would all be the prey of the young, strong, brutish, selfish and violent among us--as well as the old, strong, brutish, selfish, violent and canny among us.

Quote:

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

Certainly, and they are allowed to suffer the consequences of violating the collective subjective morality of society if and when they get caught.

Quote:

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

That's correct--i'm saying no more than that it is my opinion that they are wrong. Beyond that, as someone who believes in a social contract and its enforcement, when my opinion happens to coincide with the social, subjective morality, and society is willing and able to enforce that social, subjective morality, those who opinion differs may well suffer for it.

Quote:

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.

I know no such thing. I have had a rabbi tell me that Lot sleeping with his daughters was not wrong because he was "preserving his seed," and i've had that justification for that passage of the Bobble from both Jews and Christians (none have had the balls to claim that Lot slept through it though--there are some parts of the fairy tale that even the religious fanatics are ashamed to own up to). So it is more than a little disgusting to have another religious fanatic suggest to me that there is an absolute standard to which we can appeal, when even among the religious fanatics, there is no universal standard.

I believe that incest and pedophilia are wrong, yes. But i have the courage to acknowledge that this is a subjective opinion, and that it is necessary for society to enforce this standard of behavior. Mealy-mouthed religious types can't even agree on such standards--check out your own Bobble. So it is more than a little disgusting to have a bible-thumper telling me what i know to be right or wrong, when even the poofism crackpots can't find consensus in these matters.

So stop lying about what my position is and stop telling me what i do or don't know. Liar. Moron.

0 Replies

By the way, it is painfully evident that you have no argument, since all you can do is assert, without reasonable foundation, what i do or don't "know."

Moron.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Thank you sir. You are too kind.

Yes I understand your point regarding a deistic view, i.e. God setting up natural laws and letting them take their course.

However the statement we have been discussing implies not deism, but theism of a more active sort -- 'God guided the process of evolution'.

From my understanding, this type of intervention by God would not be consistent with the definition of naturalism.

I appreciate your input. Feel free to continue to disagree with me on other matters.

Congratulations on ignoring what some of the respondents actually said concerning the survey. It is something you continue to do repeatedly. You quote mine and ignore the rest because it blows a hole a mile wide in your argument.

Quote:

One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place."

It seems the respondents WERE using what you said they couldn't in answering. It seems the respondents said precisely what Fungo said COULD be considered naturalism.

But then this isn't suprising because you are quote mining the question in only giving one answer and not the entire question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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

By pointing out that it violates the social contract, without which we would all be the prey of the young, strong, brutish, selfish and violent among us--as well as the old, strong, brutish, selfish, violent and canny among us.

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

Certainly, and they are allowed to suffer the consequences of violating the collective subjective morality of society if and when they get caught.

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

That's correct--i'm saying no more than that it is my opinion that they are wrong. Beyond that, as someone who believes in a social contract and its enforcement, when my opinion happens to coincide with the social, subjective morality, and society is willing and able to enforce that social, subjective morality, those who opinion differs may well suffer for it.

Quote:
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.

I know no such thing. I have had a rabbi tell me that Lot sleeping with his daughters was not wrong because he was "preserving his seed," and i've had that justification for that passage of the Bobble from both Jews and Christians (none have had the balls to claim that Lot slept through it though--there are some parts of the fairy tale that even the religious fanatics are ashamed to own up to). So it is more than a little disgusting to have another religious fanatic suggest to me that there is an absolute standard to which we can appeal, when even among the religious fanatics, there is no universal standard.

I believe that incest and pedophilia are wrong, yes. But i have the courage to acknowledge that this is a subjective opinion, and that it is necessary for society to enforce this standard of behavior. Mealy-mouthed religious types can't even agree on such standards--check out your own Bobble. So it is more than a little disgusting to have a bible-thumper telling me what i know to be right or wrong, when even the poofism crackpots can't find consensus in these matters.

So stop lying about what my position is and stop telling me what i do or don't know. Liar. Moron.

Perhaps you should read your Bible a little more closely.

The story of Lot and his daughters is told in a plain unvarnished fashion. It states what they did.

Nowhere does the Bible state that what they did was right.

The Bible accurately records the daughters' words in attempting to justify their actions, but there is NO stamp of approval of their behavior from God.

The Bible records many sinful actions. Just because they are recorded doesn't mean they are approved.

------------------------------

So your whole view of morality is that an 'immoral' action 'violates the social contract, without which we would all be the prey of the young, strong, brutish, selfish and violent among us' ?

So, if the majority opinion of society were to be that the strong should indeed prevail over the weak, and that the predator/prey relationship you describe is OK, would it then be 'moral' ? Or what moral argument would you have against it?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know