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

Setanta-

How can an atheist have any view on right or wrong. He can only have a view on what is good or bad. And those are subjective. Hence your view of right can be assumed to conflate with good, in a material sense I mean, and wrong with bad.

Thus you can only know what is right and wrong selfishly or by having been conditioned to the Christian use of those terms.

Which would make you the conditioned one whereas the Christian simply has faith due to being subjected to conditioning and then, on maturity, finding that the conditioning then made sense and fit together in ways someone who hadn't been so conditioned as a young person might never be able to understand.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Perhaps you should read your Bible a little more closely.

I first read the Bobble from cover to cover 45 years ago--i suspect i've been reading it longer than you have.

Quote:

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.

I didn't claim that it had the stamp of approval from your imaginary friend. Since i have no good reason to assume that your poofism is any more than addiction to a superstitious fairy tale, telling me what your imaginary friend does or does not approve of is meaningless.

The point, which you are careful to avoid, is that religionists cannot agree on whether or not that example of incest and pedophilia is right or wrong.

Quote:

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

Once again, since you are trying to dodge it: i don't give a rat's ass what anyone alleges the Bobble's judgment, or lack thereof, may be. The point is what religionists claim is right or wrong. Since religionists cannot agree, even when they profess the same belief, it's a bit much to expect me to swallow your horseshit about absolute moral standards.

Quote:

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' ?

No, it is not.

Quote:

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?

In fact, i object to the very concept of morality. I believe in right and wrong, and consider that to be my personal ethos. I am fortunate in that my ethos is consonant with that of the society in which i live. I have already told you that my belief in what is right and what is wrong is not conditioned by cultural context. You choose to ignore that because you ultimately have no argument against my position, so you attempt to warp what i've written in a feeble attempt to cobble together an argument. Liar.

I'd have no moral argument against such a society, and were i to find myself in such a situation (and effectively, sub rosa, that is the ethos of capitalist America), i would speak against it, and refuse to cooperate in such a social contract.

My point, which you are doing your damnedest to dodge, is that even your imaginary friend crowd cannot agree on what is or isn't "moral." This despite the fact that you all claim to worship the same "god." In such a circumstance, it would be ludicrous for me to think anything else than that moral judgment is subjective.

Moron.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

I am fortunate in that my ethos is consonant with that of the society in which i live.

Not at all fortunate. It was planned. A gift from your upbringing. Are you suggesting that if you lived among some cannibals who hunted humans for food you would look down your nose at your compatriots and chew on the leaves and roots on the basis of your "ethos". New word eh?

That's a low trick.

0 Replies

It's an easy way to deny having the concept of morality by calling it an ethos instead.

Sheesh!!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

My point.... is that (you) cannot agree on what is or isn't "moral."

And you cannot keep yourself from making moral judgements, even though you claim:

Setanta wrote:

In fact, i object to the very concept of morality

0 Replies

Why does he have to refrain from making judgements?

T
K
O

0 Replies

I think Im gonna be the first of the "evolutionists" to bail. It was fun for a while. Its kinda turned into a nyah nyha fest . IF the fundies and IDers deny the evidence staring them in the face, thats no skin off my back. Ive still got a career that depends on basic laws of science and we daily can refute the worldview of guys like RL. Its one thing spouting on a chat line, its an entirely different point when someones got big money invested in a mineral site that has been located by traditional Uniformitarian principles and "Old Earth" mechanics. I will plant my onion and artichoke seeds in the sunroom and wish you all well.

See ya.

0 Replies

That's unfortunate.

I would've liked an answer to the question I asked on topic on the previous page:

Quote:

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

0 Replies

RL, that question comes out of the family of statements that include such famous concepts as "being a little pregnant" Very Happy

Archeological Evidence is strong that we, as a species "created" gods,religions, and governments at about roughly the same times. It was a population density issue and a societal response to populations that grew beyond mere extended family groups. We needed to invent "control". All the rest are mere details and ceremony.

Im most disappointed in your progress RL, you dont seem to take up any information and consider it for more than a few posts following. You redistribute the same tripe today that you were 6 months ago, and you present it like a cycle of ignorance. Theres really no discussing issues with you as long as your catechism forbids listening.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im most disappointed in your progress RL, you dont seem to take up any information and consider it for more than a few posts following. You redistribute the same tripe today that you were 6 months ago, and you present it like a cycle of ignorance. Theres really no discussing issues with you as long as your catechism forbids listening.

And when cornered on his tripe he changes the topic.

Real life,
You still have not told us how you can only have only agreed with what Potts and Porter said about the study while at the same time saying things that are in no way related to what either of them said.

Trying to get others to agree with you about something that we already KNOW that some of the respondents didn't agree with is an exercise in hiding from your own lies.

You also haven't explained how anything can be "natural" if introducing a "supernatural" element into it means it must be "supernatural."
1. You argue that the universe must have come from the supernatural. This means the universe can't be natural.
2. You argue that anyone that thinks the universe came from the big bang is saying the universe came from the supernatural.
3. That means any science defining our surroundings must be defining the supernatural.

Since the science defining our surroundings define the supernatural that means that the theory of evolution must define the supernatural. If someone believes in evolution AND the big bang the science that defines evolution can't be science about any "supernatural" phenomena.

This of course leads to the question of HOW can the study be about "natural" vs "supernatural" since by your definition of supernatural anyone that answers that God didn't guide evolution would actually be talking about the supernatural in a universe created by the big bang?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

My point.... is that (you) cannot agree on what is or isn't "moral."

And you cannot keep yourself from making moral judgements, even though you claim:

Setanta wrote:
In fact, i object to the very concept of morality

That isn't a moral judgment, and i'm not surprised that your position is so feeble that this is the best response you could cobble together. I've pointed out before, and in discussions with you, that i prefer the term ethics to morality because of all the baggage which accompanies the word morality--but i have always pointed out that i accept and use the term morality for sake of discussion.

At no time have i denied that i make moral judgments, i've just pointed out that i have no illusions about the source of "morality," that it is subjective, and not derived from some alleged objective absolute.

You are, of course, dodging the issue of the inability of religionists to agree on what constitutes morality and how precisely it is authorized by scripture. Under the circumstances, there is no reason for me not to consider morality to be subjectively derived.

You have no plausible response to that position.

Moron.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Real life,
You still have not told us how you can only have only agreed with what Potts and Porter said about the study while at the same time saying things that are in no way related to what either of them said.

Sorry parados, I think you are beyond my help.

If you cannot understand how I can agree with Potts (or Porter) on one point while disagreeing with them on other points, there isn't much I can say that will help you understand it.

Have a good day. Cool

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:

My point.... is that (you) cannot agree on what is or isn't "moral."

And you cannot keep yourself from making moral judgements, even though you claim:

Setanta wrote:
In fact, i object to the very concept of morality

........At no time have i denied that i make moral judgments........

If you object to the very concept of morality, it seems odd that you would make moral judgements. Isn't that somewhat inconsistent with your own view?

You were criticizing Christians for not agreeing with one another, while it seems that you cannot even remain consistent with yourself.

0 Replies

I understand perfectly why you would disagree with Potts and Porter but I don't understand how you can support this statement while you disagree with them on the interpretation of the results.

real life wrote:

I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.

Either you interpret it the way Potts and Porter have or you don't interpret the way they have. You can't disagree with Potts and Porter on the interpretation while at the same time be consistent in interpreting it the way they do.

I don't think the problem is in my question real life but rather it is in the fact that you can't provide a logical answer. I realize that my question is beyond help in that you can't help but run away from it. But I might as well point out your inaccuracies, prevarications etc. It does make for good fun for all to see your lies.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:

My point.... is that (you) cannot agree on what is or isn't "moral."

And you cannot keep yourself from making moral judgements, even though you claim:

Setanta wrote:
In fact, i object to the very concept of morality

........At no time have i denied that i make moral judgments........

If you object to the very concept of morality, it seems odd that you would make moral judgements. Isn't that somewhat inconsistent with your own view?

You are playing your usual witless game. You are ignoring that i have explained my objections to the word morality, and the baggage which always accompanies the word, but that i am willing to employ it for the sake of discussion. It is simpler to admit to making moral judgments than it is to explain each time my objections to the use of the word morality, and then explain about my preference for the term ethics, and my sense of the ethos of the social contract. Typically, you are playing a word game, and avoiding the point.

Quote:

You were criticizing Christians for not agreeing with one another, while it seems that you cannot even remain consistent with yourself.

There is no problem of consistency in my position. Whether you describe my judgments of what is right and what is wrong as moral or ethical, or banana cream makes no difference at all to the core position which i have been hammering you with. I have consistently pointed out that the basis of such judgments is subjective, and all you had to offer in rebuttal was a pathetic attempt (failed) to claim that i "know" that some things are "just wrong." I know no such thing, and you have not offered a shred of evidence that there is any absolute, objective basis for "morality," or for "ethics," or for "banana cream."

You're really very poor at this sort of thing. You're making just as much a fool of yourself in your attempts to dodge the charges which Parados is bringing against you.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

you disagree with (Potts and Porter) on the interpretation of the results.

Incorrect.

The short statements by both are not in conflict with what I have said.

Porter characterizes the 40% as 'theistic evolutionists' . And I agree.

Potts says that 55% of the respondents took a naturalistic approach. And I agree.

What interpretation of the survey did Potts or Porter give that you think I disagree with?

0 Replies

Quote:

I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.

Any interpretation OUTSIDE of what you just listed from Potts and Porter would not be consistent with the way they interpreted it.

You have consistently claimed interpretations that are different from what you just listed from Potts and Porter.

You have claimed the survey was about 'naturalism' vs 'supernaturalism'. Something neither Porter or Potts have said.

You claimed the survey backed up your contention that a large percentage scientists believe that naturalism can't explain the universe or complex beings. Something neither Porter or Potts have said.

You said that 45% of respondents believe that naturalism can't explain man's existence. Something that neither Potts or Porter said. Your 45% figure is made up by assuming that Potts would take a position you take. The rest of Potts' statement would seem to contradict your 45% claim.

You have claimed that Timber agreed with you when he said this

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process

But you then argue that there can be nothing naturalistic in the 40%.

Not only have your "interpretations" not always been consistent with what Potts and Porter said. They haven't even been consistent with what YOU have said at various times. You have not consistently interpreted the survey in the way Potts and Porter did. You have interpreted in multiple ways that they never did. Your statement is a lie.

Let's assume JoeBlow claims he has consistently picked the same numbers as Potts a Porter. Potts and Porter picked 3 and 5. JoeBlow picked 3, 5, 22, 46, 101, and 254. JoeBlow may have picked the same numbers as Potts and Porter but he has NOT consistently picked the same numbers. Your statement that you have consistently interpreted the survey in the same way as Potts and Porter is complete BS.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.

Any interpretation OUTSIDE of what you just listed from Potts and Porter would not be consistent with the way they interpreted it.

You have consistently claimed interpretations that are different from what you just listed from Potts and Porter.

You have claimed the survey was about 'naturalism' vs 'supernaturalism'. Something neither Porter or Potts have said.

You claimed the survey backed up your contention that a large percentage scientists believe that naturalism can't explain the universe or complex beings. Something neither Porter or Potts have said.

You said that 45% of respondents believe that naturalism can't explain man's existence. Something that neither Potts or Porter said. Your 45% figure is made up by assuming that Potts would take a position you take. The rest of Potts' statement would seem to contradict your 45% claim.

You have claimed that Timber agreed with you when he said this

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process
But you then argue that there can be nothing naturalistic in the 40%.

Not only have your "interpretations" not always been consistent with what Potts and Porter said. They haven't even been consistent with what YOU have said at various times. You have not consistently interpreted the survey in the way Potts and Porter did. You have interpreted in multiple ways that they never did. Your statement is a lie.

Let's assume JoeBlow claims he has consistently picked the same numbers as Potts a Porter. Potts and Porter picked 3 and 5. JoeBlow picked 3, 5, 22, 46, 101, and 254. JoeBlow may have picked the same numbers as Potts and Porter but he has NOT consistently picked the same numbers. Your statement that you have consistently interpreted the survey in the same way as Potts and Porter is complete BS.

I claim to be from the USA. Something Potts and Porter never said.

I claim to enjoy sourdough pretzels. Something Potts and Porter never said.

What's your point, parados?

Why don't you quote something specific that you think I DID attribute to either, and show what you think they said.

0 Replies

Your being from the USA is NOT an interpretation of the survey so is irrelevent.

Your liking sourdough pretzels is NOT an interpretation of the survey so is not relevent.

This IS your statement.

Quote:

I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.

Your statement means that YOU, REAL LIFE has consistently interpreted the survey the SAME way as Potts and Porter. It does NOT mean that they interpreted it differently. It only means you didn't interpret it in any way different from the way they did. If you give an interpretation of the survey that they did NOT then you have interpreted DIFFERENT because they did NOT interpret it that way.

I have REPEATEDLY posted what you have said about the survey, your EXACT words. Your words are in no way supported by Potts and Porter so YOU have interpreted it DIFFERENT since they did NOT interpret it that way.

You can't interpret something the SAME way if they didn't indicate they interpreted it that way. You just make up **** all the time.

You have stated the survey was about "supernaturalism" vs "naturalism." This is an interpretation of the survey. It is not fact. It is not about pretzels. It is about the survey. It is about what the answers mean. It is an interpretation of the results of the survey. Neither Potts or Porter said the survey was about "naturalism" vs "supernaturalism." You can not claim this is the way Potts and Porter interpreted the survey. Since you can't claim they interpreted it this way you can't claim you are consistent in interpreting it the way they did.

You have stated that the survey supports your statement that scientist think science alone can't explain the universe and complex beings. That is an interpretation of the survey and its results. It is NOT supported by Potts or Porter in any fashion that is in evidence. Since you can't claim they interpreted it this way you can't claim you are consistent in interpreting it the way they did.

You have NOT consistently interpreted the results in the same way Potts and Porter have since you have made statements that they did not.

I used the JoeBlow example because you are just acting stupid. You can't be consistent with someone if you make statements that are far beyond anything they said. You have made statements far BEYOND what Potts and Porter said so you can't claim you have consistently interpreted it they way they did. It is impossible to do so.

Let me repeat..
This is about what YOU said that does not agree with anything that can be attributed to Potts and Porter. You can't repeatedly agree with them about the survey if you make statements that they never said. That is not agreement.

But then I think that is part of the problem. You don't understand what the word "agree" means. You claimed Timber "agreed" with you when he made the statement that 40% add a deistic role to a naturalistic process. Yet, you claim there can be nothing naturalistic about the process those 40% used. That is NOT agreement. You are diametrically opposed to what Timber said. You bastardize language at every opportunity.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Let me repeat..
This is about what YOU said that does not agree with anything that can be attributed to Potts and Porter.

I agreed with the ONLY statements we have from them that indicate how they interpreted the survey.

Porter characterizes the 40% as 'theistic evolutionists' . And I agree.

Potts says that 55% of the respondents took a naturalistic approach. And I agree.

Yur chasin' yur tail, kid.

But your 'interpretation' of naturalism:

parados wrote:

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

has been the source of quite a few laughs. Thanks for that and keep it up. Laughing

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know