19
   

How can one who believes in no God have true morals?

 
 
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 02:47 pm
@kency123,
ok but i consider the earth to be a living thing that evolved to be what it is now giving life the safe environment to be born
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 04:22 pm
@momoends,
momoends wrote:

ok but i consider the earth to be a living thing that evolved to be what it is now giving life the safe environment to be born

So you consider biological evolution to be an extension of stellar evolution?
kency123
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 04:30 pm
@momoends,
Quote:
ok but i consider the earth to be a living thing that evolved to be what it is now giving life the safe environment to be born


Ok, well...it's not, but so long as you don't try and force my kids to learn that or stone me to death for disagreeing then I'm cool with that!
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 04:42 pm
@rosborne979,
ok let me answer you by asking something: if all of those rocks thrown into the "space"have "settled" further away from the sun than the earth is, would this biological evolution have happened?
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 04:43 pm
@kency123,
it´s not? ok for you what´s a living thing?
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 05:28 pm
@rosborne979,
momoends wrote:
ok but i consider the earth to be a living thing that evolved to be what it is now giving life the safe environment to be born
rosborne979 wrote:
So you consider biological evolution to be an extension of stellar evolution?
I'm thinking cosmic selection here. I wonder how farmer would see it.
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 05:46 pm
@neologist,
what do you mean how farmer would see it?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 06:28 pm
@momoends,
momoends wrote:
ok let me answer you by asking something: if all of those rocks thrown into the "space"have "settled" further away from the sun than the earth is, would this biological evolution have happened?

How does that answer me? They might have or might not have, depending on how much different the conditions were. But what does this have to do with anything?
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 07:34 pm
@rosborne979,
ok the different material transformations our planet went through till get to be as it is today and the final placement from our sun, created the ideal conditions for the beginning of life as we know it
changes in its surface and deeper levers, seisms, and bla bla changed the environment all animals live in ... the animals who could evolved and better adapted to their environment were the one surviving and bla bra
conclusion: i see the earth as a living entity that changes and evolves continuously forcing any other living thing on its surface to evolve in order to survive..
evolution as we know is the directly result of earth evolution
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 07:49 pm
@momoends,
It's clear that the Earth is covered with biology, and that the biology affects its environment. So the entire planet is host to a self-regulating biosphere. But I don't think that means that the planet itself (the rocks and magma) are alive any more than having Moss on a rock makes the rock alive.

As for the Earth being in a perfect place for life, it's more likely that it was in a zone in which our particular form of life could readily take hold. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that life evolved on Mars as well. I guess we'll see about this one of these days.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 08:03 pm
@momoends,
momoends wrote:

what do you mean how farmer would see it?


The poster who is here known as farmerman.

He would have some educated input.
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 08:11 pm
@chai2,
oooh perfect!
i was sharing how i felt about nature and our planet

whatever, bye
0 Replies
 
kency123
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 12:52 am
@momoends,
Quote:
it´s not? ok for you what´s a living thing?

Something made of cells, self sustaining, reproducing, responding to stimuli
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 02:25 am
It is, of course, rather a case of putting the cart before the horse to say that conditions on earth are just right for life. Saying as much is rather tautological, because without the "right" conditions, there would have been no life here. Furthermore, as Roswell points out, the biosphere is like moss on a rock. There is life on the planet, but the planet itself cannot reasonably be said to be alive, except in a poetic sense.

It is reasonable to point to changes in the ecosphere that effect the life on this planet, but too much should not be made of that--life is relentlessly adaptable.

What we have learned about life here, and what we have learned about other planets, this star system and other star systems--ought to give us pause to consider how uncommon life likely is. We have a dense atmosphere which serves to protect us from the stellar radiation of our star, Sol (the sun). But our atmosphere is not too dense. It took the Russians a long time to get a probe on the surface of Venus, because the probes were being crushed by atmospheric pressure before reaching the surface. At mean surface level on Venus, the atmospheric pressure is more than 90 times as great as it is on Earth at mean sea level. The temperature at mean surface level is about 450 degrees centigrade, largely as a result of atmospheric composition.

Earth's proximity to our star is almost meaningless. Such a planet as ours, were it within the orbit of Venus, would probably be getting too much insolation (sunlight falling on the surface) and certainly too much radiation. But even where we are, we get perhaps four or five times as much sunlight as the plant life here needs. If you were on the surface of Mars, which gets a small fraction of the sunlight that Earth does, you wouldn't notice much of a difference--you'd be able to see, and see in detail, quite well.

Finally, Earth has a magnetic field generator at its core. The core, about the size of a large asteroid, is (probably) solid iron. It is spinning much faster than the rest of the planet. Surrounding that iron core is a region of liquid nickel-iron, which is spinning more slowly than the core, but much faster than the rest of the planet. This gives us a very strong magnetic field. That also protects us from stellar radiation from our star.

Astronomers used to speak of a "Cinderella" zone, implying that proximity to a star has something to do with the prospects for life. They ought to be embarrassed. Were Earth in the orbit which Mars occupies, we would still be getting enough insolation and be well pr0tected from stellar radiation. Favorable conditions have less to do with proximity to the star than they do with atmospheric composition. You have to get a long way away from the star for radiation levels to be too low for life, which is relentlessly insatiable--once it gets started.
kency123
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 03:09 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Astronomers used to speak of a "Cinderella" zone


It's the "Goldilocks" zone where I come from...the porridge is not too hot, not too cold, it's juuuuust right
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 03:18 am
@kency123,
Yes, you're right. They should still be embarrassed.
0 Replies
 
braydenvaness
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 06:30 pm
@rosborne979,
what do you mean by naturally? And what standard would we have to base these morals without the existence of God?
braydenvaness
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 06:32 pm
@kency123,
I am not saying morals must come from reading the Bible, but what do we base these morals off of if there is not greater power or standard then man himself?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 06:37 pm
@braydenvaness,
Jeeze . . . religion never made a bad man good, nor has the lack of it made a good man bad. The basis for a natural ethic is the family--if your family does not have compassion, tolerance and love, you're screwed anyway. The god of the bobble would be locked up as an abusive parent these days, and with good reason. What does religion give us? The abuse and repression of women, the abuse and mutilation of children, the slaughter of those who are merely different. It is just incredible that people will invoke their god as a source of morality.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 06:49 pm
@braydenvaness,
braydenvaness wrote:
what do you mean by naturally?

I mean naturally, as in "no god required", just natural processes.
braydenvaness wrote:
And what standard would we have to base these morals without the existence of God?

How about the standard of "do the other people in my society like me for these behaviors". That's a pretty good standard.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 11:57:10