Quote by melymayWell this is nice. We're
arguing. About what, I have no clue. I'd rather not read the whole conversation
though. It'll probably take me a really long time to
understand.
Well this is nice. We're arguing. About what, I have no clue. I'd rather not
read the whole conversation though. It'll probably take me a really long time to
understand.
Edit, 2007-12-24: Can we do this on each other's guestbook instead of on the
group's if you want?
Edit 2, 2007-12-24: On second thought, I have too much work to bother with you
anymore. Feel free to post on ProgramZERO's guestbook if he wants to keep trying
to get you to think, but I'm pretty sure it's futile. Hope you have fun
spreading ignorance across the world. Maybe--if you're lucky that is--the world
will be ruled by Christian theocracy. Except this time they'll have nuclear
weapons and even more powerful propaganda, among many other things.
Quote by Persocom01Define this
relationship. I'm tempted to say I'm a homosexual too in this case since my best
friend is of the same sex. I'll actually rather you stop the meaningless playing
with definitions, but if you wish, I'll continue with
this.
Do have some of trouble understanding what I'm saying? It's not very difficult.
Perhaps you should try a little bit harder. If you know anything about the
English language, you know what a boyfriend and a girlfriend are and you would
not call someone who is merely a friend and who is male a "boyfriend".
If you want to though, feel free to, but I've got the feeling that you're just
trying to annoy me because you don't want to confront what I'm actually saying
so instead you get off topic like this, as usual.
In the end, I know that all you'll be able to say is that homosexuality is wrong
because God doesn't like it since that's not the way God intended for people to
have sex. I doubt you consider a male having a male boyfriend to be moral, even
if they don't have sex, and that's what I'm trying to verify.
Quote by Persocom01
If can stop a dagger from hitting my friends, does that mean I don't feel angry
at the person who threw it? It doesn't. Of course God allows Christians to die
because he can give them something better after they do, but the same argument
applies. I don't see why he shouldn't be angry.
If you knew you could easily stop a dagger from hitting your friends all the
time, I don't see why you'd be angry with the person who threw it. Perhaps you
wouldn't want them to try to hurt your friends, but if it's completely within
your power to stop it, then the one you should be most upset with is yourself
for not stopping it. When people die, they're "taken away" from you,
but they wouldn't, supposedly, be taken away from God so God has no reason to be
upset at their death. In fact, God should be happy that they now have a much
better quality of life after dying.
Quote by Persocom01
Can't you see that you've given no basis for your judgement of what is
necessary? What you've given me IS circualr reasoning. How do you judge the
morality of situations? - unnecessary suffering. And how do you judge the
necessity of suffering? - depends on situation. You've essentially managed to avoid giving any basis for your your
morality. (don't make me repeat this, else I'll cut and paste next
time)
The basis for the judgment depends on one's goals. If you don't want people to
suffer, you try to prevent suffering. That's the basis for an individual's
morality.
Quote by Persocom01
You're skipping something important - why should you care if "suffering has
a negative effect on people". The understanding that you should care is
based on God's law.
Because I want to. It's called empathy, you may have heard of it. Here's a
pretty good definition: "the intellectual identification with or vicarious
experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." I am able
to empathize with others, so therefore I can sort of tell what they're feeling
and I can try to prevent them from suffering.
Quote by Persocom01By Biblical basis
for slavery you should account for the fact that pretty much all forms of
servanthood is given the blanket term slavery in the Bible. The Hebrew language
didn't have so many terms to describe "contract worker", "under
bond", "maid" or "butler". (in one instance in Proverbs
the Bible even calls a man who can't pay up his loan a slave) If the type of
slavery the Bible were practiced today, it's nothing like the slavery you think
of where masters whip slaves or give them no rights. In fact many of the rights
that slaves were given (right to justice) were equal to that of their masters.
I'll say a similar kind of slavery in the Bible is practiced in my country,
although we call the person a maid instead of a slave. For more information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
It isn't profoundly evil to serve another person. Employees do it all the time.
Jesus himself is sometimes called the "servant king". While in the OT
Bible masters do 'own' slaves, slaves had the rights not as inanimate objects
(that the term property implies) but as human beings.
So if you're correct,that still leaves:
Quote: *The Bible permitted owners
to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as
long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the
owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the
slave was his property. 4
*Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery
-- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly
evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify
slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
*Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no
record of him having said anything negative about the
institution.
Quote by Persocom01
Nope. There's just another condition. You can have a "Biblical basis"
for many things by selectively quoting the Bible as you tried to do with me
before. It's hardly surprising.
It's surprising to me that something inspired by God that is completely perfect
would be able to be abused like that.
Quote by Persocom01
1. You're implying that Intelligent Design Theorists aren't scientists/all
scientists agree on the definition of science, which isn't true.
2. You're also implying the scientists have some scientific method of defining
science, superior to noraml human beings which also isn't true. Tell me, who
coined the word scientists/science?
Why would I know who coined the word and how is that relevant?
It's called a scientific consensus. Of course there will be some disagreement
and of course there are some ID proponents who are scientists, just as there are
some astrologists who are scientists. The difference is they are far fewer in
number than in the general population.
Quote by Persocom01When you break the
word down, Atheism derives (etymology = derivation of a word) from the Greek
word "atheos" which means "godless".[1][2] "-ism"
means belief. Therefore Atheism = "godless belief" and not a lack of
belief in God.
-ism can denote a condition or quality, not a belief.
-ism:
1. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
2. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified:
strychninism.
3. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
4. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Quote by Persocom01
Which goes back to my point - you're going back on your original supporting
reason for defining Atheism as a lack of belief.
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define
atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
Still want to reason in circles?
I'm not "going back" to my original reason. I have more than one reason. You should be able to
understand this, but I guess you just can't.
Quote by Persocom01The article froms
from a Atheistic point of view, whereby free will does not exist. Physical
determism again I see.
What they're saying is that humans can't choose to be gay or straight, i.e.,
they can't choose which gender their attracted to. You might as well say,
"secular atheist deterministic physical materialism". It's getting
kind of annoying now. What's the difference between physical determinism and
determinism?
Quote by Persocom01"Because
evolution is assumed to be true, Good and Evil are essentially a matter of
opinion and do not exist in reality to the Atheist. (obviously evolution isn't
going to care about rape, murder or stealing. Evolution is essentially a chain
of survival and death) No perfect basis for morality exists, although more
common bases include some form of societal pragmatism or societal
consensus....
There is nothing to be redeemed for, and Atheists have their own personal goals,
which can range anywhere from world domination, maximisation of pleasure, ease
of living, to the advancement of human society."
Sorry,
it's just that the above quote makes it seem like that was what you were
suggesting.
Quote: You're commiting the red
herring logical fallacy. Whether or not DNA is subject to selection or not
doesn't change the fact that it is essentially information for the running of a
cell, just as software is information for the running of a
computer.
Yes but your argument is that since computer code
was obviously designed then RNA/DNA must've also been designed since they share
the role of running something whether it be a cell or computer when both are not
exactly alike. Abiogenesis can explain RNA/DNA. Abiogenesis obviously doesn't
apply to computer code which we know is man-made.
Quote: Sorry if I sound offensive,
but frankly that's what I think of most your replies. You appear to me to be
writing for the sake of writing or having the last word, regardless of whether
your reply is a good argument or not, and regardless of whether your reply was
relevant or not. See reply 1.
I post in hopes of you
responding back. When you don't respond or refuse to respond, I get the last
word without the intent. If my responses are weak, people will see that so
you've nothing to worry about. Just because I get the last word whether by
default or purposefully matters not if my argument is weak which most people
should be able to see.
Well,
that's simply the word the biologist used to describe RDNA. (I've shortened
RNA/DNA)
Quote: Other comments:
We don't design computer programs to replicate because that would turn them into
viruses. We like them just the way they are - sitting benign until the user
replicates it.
Only more reason not to compare computer code
to RDNA. The only RDNA that matters is the one that replicates. Otherwise, it's
just another compound.
Quote: You should also know that
divergence (longer fur in rabbits, dog having longer ears etc) doesn't prove
evolution any more than design unless it goes to the extent of creating new
features. (new eye for a worm, wings for a dog etc...)
Well,
evolution occurs via exaptations, not radical mutations such as wings on a dog.
Of course, once an organism evolves new features, it has diverged to the point
where common ancestry isn't always so obvious. I for example had no idea that
whales and hippos shared ancestry although it makes sense.
Quote: Yes of course there's almost
always an alternative theory. (good point though)
Of course.
We can't travel back in time so we're stuck theorizing.
Quote: It might be interesting to
note that Darwin once thought that a lack of transitional fossils would be
evidence against his theory. Of course, that was before punctuated equilibrium
(the hypothesis that evolution was so fast during the fossil gaps that it was
not captured, and at other times did not occur at all) came to the rescue. (thus
making it irrelevant whether transitional fossils are found or not) Nevertheless
proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud
today[1], not that either can be proven.
That's because it
would take a long time and large amounts of resources to prove punctuated
equilibrium. I say if it's the only one that explains it then it must be so...
Until someone else presents another believable hypothesis.
Quote by ProgramZEROYes, okay, now I
do. No, Atheists don't use Evolution to determine their morality. I'm one
example of this.
I never said that they did.
Quote by ProgramZEROPersocom, there's
no need to get offensive. If my responses suck, it only makes your job
easier.
RNA/DNA is prone to natural selection, recombination, and mutation. Computer
code sits in someone's office and stays the same until someone decides to change
it.
And any RNA/DNA strand with the code to replicate/reproduce would only flourish
as opposed to a strand that couldn't which would simply die
out.
You're commiting the red herring logical fallacy. Whether or not DNA is subject
to selection or not doesn't change the fact that it is essentially information
for the running of a cell, just as software is information for the running of a
computer. Sorry if I sound offensive, but frankly that's what I think of most
your replies. You appear to me to be writing for the sake of writing or having
the last word, regardless of whether your reply is a good argument or not, and
regardless of whether your reply was relevant or not. See reply 1.
Other comments:
We don't design computer programs to replicate because that would turn them into
viruses. We like them just the way they are - sitting benign until the user
replicates it.
Quote by ProgramZEROWhat do you mean?
Are you asking me to what extent organisms diverge?
You should also know that divergence (longer fur in rabbits, dog having longer
ears etc) doesn't prove evolution any more than design unless it goes to the
extent of creating new features. (new eye for a worm, wings for a dog
etc...)
Quote by ProgramZEROI would say
punctuated equilibrium. Organisms don't evolve at a steady rate. Species that
enjoy a period of little change usually don't have many selective pressures that
cause certain individuals of the species to die and others to thrive and
therefore they become more widespread increasing the chance of fossilization.
These fossils would of course belong to a relatively stable population of
species. More dramatic change occurs over a smaller amount of time creating a
smaller window for transitional forms to be fossilized and since Evolution is
driven by survival of the fittest, the population will be driven down making the
organism more uncommon and further decreasing chances of fossilization. Also,
when predators hunt down prey, the integrity of the skeleton isn't
guaranteed.
Yes of course there's almost always an alternative theory. (good point though)
It might be interesting to note that Darwin once thought that a lack of
transitional fossils would be evidence against his theory. Of course, that was
before punctuated equilibrium (the hypothesis that evolution was so fast during
the fossil gaps that it was not captured, and at other times did not occur at
all) came to the rescue. (thus making it irrelevant whether transitional fossils
are found or not) Nevertheless proponents of punctuated equilibrium and
classical Darwinism continue to feud today[1], not that either can be
proven.
Quote by Persocom01Defined in my post
about Worldviews remember?
Yes, okay, now I do. No, Atheists
don't use Evolution to determine their morality. I'm one example of this.
Quote: RNA/DNA are essentially
information for the running of cells, just as software is information used to
run a computer. In case you didn't know they even come with their progarmming
language defined as well. This is an interesting point, for cells wouldn't work
without it, and at the same time, it requires the cell to recreate iteself.
(chicken and egg problem) Your current reply is also a perfect example of why I
don't reply to more than half of your replies. They tend to be shallow,
ill-researched, and quite frankly they suck.
Persocom,
there's no need to get offensive. If my responses suck, it only makes your job
easier.
RNA/DNA is prone to natural selection, recombination, and mutation. Computer
code sits in someone's office and stays the same until someone decides to change
it.
And any RNA/DNA strand with the code to replicate/reproduce would only flourish
as opposed to a strand that couldn't which would simply die out.
Quote: You're being vague about
this. Another perfect example of a half-baked reply. You left any mention of
extent of divergence out.
What do you mean? Are you asking me
to what extent organisms diverge?
Quote: "The problem (lack of
transitional fossils) cannot lie merely in the scantiness of fossilization.
True, it is a rare event for an animal, especially a land animal, to leave its
skeleton to be dug up millions of years later. It is always possible to say that
a transitional form must have existed but has not yet been found. Nevertheless,
an enormous amount of information is available. ... Remains of some 250,000
extinct species have been recovered and classified, and they ought to provide a
reasonably good picture of the life of the past ... But the fossil record does
not tell us what theory promises. We expect to find a great tree, with many
forks sending branches in different directions. ... The tree of life as it
appears in the rocks is strangely different from this ideal. The beginnings of
new limbs are seldom even close to the part of the tree from which they
supposedly sprang, and a number of branches usually appear close together
without any connection. Charts depicting ancestries through the ages are
sometimes fudged by drawing connections where they are assumed; the more honest
ones have dotted lines. By corollary, there is little indication of actual
change. Stability or stasis is normal. Gradual change appears mostly in
dimensions, as increases of size or enlargements of parts (Eldredge 1985, 23,
75). ... It is as though life goes behind the bushes and emerges in new
clothes." - ("Beyond Natural Selection", Wesson[1], 1991,
pp.39-40, emphasis mine).
I would say punctuated equilibrium.
Organisms don't evolve at a steady rate. Species that enjoy a period of little
change usually don't have many selective pressures that cause certain
individuals of the species to die and others to thrive and therefore they become
more widespread increasing the chance of fossilization. These fossils would of
course belong to a relatively stable population of species. More dramatic change
occurs over a smaller amount of time creating a smaller window for transitional
forms to be fossilized and since Evolution is driven by survival of the fittest,
the population will be driven down making the organism more uncommon and further
decreasing chances of fossilization. Also, when predators hunt down prey, the
integrity of the skeleton isn't guaranteed.
Quote by alexjohnc3
No, the reason you call it homosexual is between it's a love between two people
of the same sex. A heterosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be like a
boy who has a girlfriend and a homosexual relationship that is non-sexual would
be a boy who has a boyfriend. There isn't necessarily any sex involved, but it's
still homosexual because it's two people of the same sex who are in the
relationship instead of the opposite sex.
Define this relationship. I'm tempted to say I'm a homosexual too in this case
since my best friend is of the same sex. I'll actually rather you stop the
meaningless playing with definitions, but if you wish, I'll continue with
this.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't think I can make it much clearer. Those people in the anime you listed
were angry because someone they cared for was injured, killed, etc. and they
couldn't stop it. God can stop suffering if God wishes and when people die,
they're still "alive" from God's POV. While those anime characters
might have an excuse to be angry, God doesn't because it is well within his
power to prevent any suffering he wants and being dead does not prevent God from
seeing you like it would a loved one.
If can stop a dagger from hitting my friends, does that mean I don't feel angry
at the person who threw it? It doesn't. Of course God allows Christians to die
because he can give them something better after they do, but the same argument
applies. I don't see why he shouldn't be angry.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't see how what I'm saying is circular, you might be misinterpreting what
I'm saying, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying what's necessary depends on the
situation. If it's necessary to have children, then it's not immoral to have
children even if it causes some suffering for the mother. If it's necessary to
kill a guy to prevent him from blowing up a hospital, then it's not immoral to
shoot him. There's nothing circular about judging each individual situation.
Can't you see that you've given no basis for your judgement of what is
necessary? What you've given me IS circualr reasoning. How do you judge the
morality of situations? - unnecessary suffering. And how do you judge the
necessity of suffering? - depends on situation. You've essentially managed to avoid giving any basis for your your
morality. (don't make me repeat this, else I'll cut and paste next
time)
Quote by alexjohnc3
No it's not an appeal to the law of God, it's understanding that people suffer
and that suffering has a negative effect on people, and therefore should be
avoided and eventually eliminated.
If by a "Biblical basis" you mean, "Jesus said to be nice to
people," that's not enough if you take into account that the Bible never
once condemns slavery, but instead merely regulates it (to my knowledge, that
is).
You're skipping something important - why should you care if "suffering has
a negative effect on people". The understanding that you should care is
based on God's law.
By Biblical basis for slavery you should account for the fact that pretty much
all forms of servanthood is given the blanket term slavery in the Bible. The
Hebrew language didn't have so many terms to describe "contract
worker", "under bond", "maid" or "butler".
(in one instance in Proverbs the Bible even calls a man who can't pay up his
loan a slave) If the type of slavery the Bible were practiced today, it's
nothing like the slavery you think of where masters whip slaves or give them no
rights. In fact many of the rights that slaves were given (right to justice)
were equal to that of their masters. I'll say a similar kind of slavery in the
Bible is practiced in my country, although we call the person a maid instead of
a slave. For more information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Quote by alexjohnc3*Biblical passages
recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
*The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of
killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before
dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime,
because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
*Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery
-- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly
evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify
slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
*Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no
record of him having said anything negative about the
institution.
It isn't profoundly evil to serve another person. Employees do it all the time.
Jesus himself is sometimes called the "servant king". While in the OT
Bible masters do 'own' slaves, slaves had the rights not as inanimate objects
(that the term property implies) but as human beings.
Nope. There's just another condition. You can have a "Biblical basis"
for many things by selectively quoting the Bible as you tried to do with me
before. It's hardly surprising.
Quote by alexjohnc3No because science
is defined by scientists, and, unlike Christianity, Wicca, atheism, etc. you
can't be a scientist by saying you accept the principals of science like the
scientific method. Of course, you could always make a religion like Sciencity
and have the followers call themselves Scientists, but that would just be
confusing because words are meant to describe concepts. All I'm saying is
atheism seems to make most sense describing a particular concept because of what
it means when you break the word down and because atheists describe atheism as a
lack of a belief in any gods. Your free to define it however you want, but it
will just be confusing if you don't use the "right" definition because
when you talk to an "atheist" you'll actually be talking to an
"agnostic."
1. You're implying that Intelligent Design Theorists aren't scientists/all
scientists agree on the definition of science, which isn't true.
2. You're also implying the scientists have some scientific method of defining
science, superior to noraml human beings which also isn't true. Tell me, who
coined the word scientists/science?
When you break the word down, Atheism derives (etymology = derivation of a word)
from the Greek word "atheos" which means "godless".[1][2]
"-ism" means belief. Therefore Atheism = "godless belief"
and not a lack of belief in God.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not saying they self-identify with it. The reason I think Buddhists, babies,
the mentally disabled, etc. should be considered atheists is because of my other
reason--what the word means when you break it down. That and that just because
Christians, for example, don't identify with theism doesn't mean they're not
theists. You can be something without identifying with it.
Which goes back to my point - you're going back on your original supporting
reason for defining Atheism as a lack of belief.
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define
atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
Still want to reason in circles?
Quote by alexjohnc3
From the APA:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely
the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is
also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or
inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In
summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different
people."
God could easily prevent the environmental, cognitive, and biological
factors.
The article froms from a Atheistic point of view, whereby free will does not
exist. Physical determism again I see.
Quote by ProgramZERO
And could you please define "Atheistic worldview"?
Defined in my post about Worldviews remember?
Quote by ProgramZERODon't compare DNA
to software Persocom. And RNA/DNA are really just long molecules. Molecules are
ubiquitous if you didn't know and they support common descent as do fossils and
anatomical/genetic similarities between our ape 'cousins' and us. Common descent
was a likely consequence of Evolution. Common descent does not support nor
refute Intelligent Design/Creationism. As a matter of fact, Natural Selection
probably also played a role in the evolution of RNA/DNA from more simple
molecules in an early Earth.
RNA/DNA are essentially information for the running of cells, just as software
is information used to run a computer. In case you didn't know they even come
with their progarmming language defined as well. This is an interesting point,
for cells wouldn't work without it, and at the same time, it requires the cell
to recreate iteself. (chicken and egg problem) Your current reply is also a
perfect example of why I don't reply to more than half of your replies. They
tend to be shallow, ill-researched, and quite frankly they suck.
Quote by ProgramZERO
Yes it does. Organisms that are biologically separated at one point will diverge
as their environments begin to change independently but they will still retain
certain genetic similarities that don't affect fitness in that
environment.
You're being vague about this. Another perfect example of a half-baked reply.
You left any mention of extent of divergence out. Here's a quote to think
about:
"The problem (lack of transitional fossils) cannot lie merely in the
scantiness of fossilization. True, it is a rare event for an animal, especially
a land animal, to leave its skeleton to be dug up millions of years later. It is
always possible to say that a transitional form must have existed but has not
yet been found. Nevertheless, an enormous amount of information is available.
... Remains of some 250,000 extinct species have been recovered and classified,
and they ought to provide a reasonably good picture of the life of the past ...
But the fossil record does not tell us what theory promises. We expect to find a
great tree, with many forks sending branches in different directions. ... The
tree of life as it appears in the rocks is strangely different from this ideal.
The beginnings of new limbs are seldom even close to the part of the tree from
which they supposedly sprang, and a number of branches usually appear close
together without any connection. Charts depicting ancestries through the ages
are sometimes fudged by drawing connections where they are assumed; the more
honest ones have dotted lines. By
corollary, there is little indication of actual change. Stability or stasis is
normal. Gradual change appears mostly in dimensions, as increases of size or
enlargements of parts (Eldredge 1985, 23, 75). ... It is as though life
goes behind the bushes and emerges in new clothes." - ("Beyond Natural
Selection", Wesson[1], 1991, pp.39-40, emphasis mine).
Quote by Persocom01You're just
redefining your(flawed) definition on an ad hoc basis. As long as pain causes
the person joy it must be moral I see. Masochism must be moral in your opinion I
guess. Trying to sound wise with your "Life isn't so simple"? You
fool. You can't even recognise that your definition of morailty is too simple
for life. It is also untrue that physical pain does not cause mental stress. It
does. Tell me what your state of mind would be if you accidentally rammed a
hammer on your finger. (calm?)
Your state of mind would be
anguish of course. But that was accidental and that example has nothing to do
with morality.
As for masochism, I have no problem with masochists as long as they're not
causing anyone else any pain/suffering.
Quote: Imo you should save yourself
time instead of offering more baseless (materialistically speaking) reasons for
upholding the golden rule. It is merely an opinion on your part as you are
unable to derive such a law from an Atheistic worldview. (imo it's impossible,
but good luck trying) I know you for your endless supply of excuses, (and half
baked refutations) more than half of which I never bothered
replying.
IMO, that was a very good reason to uphold the
golden rule.
And could you please define "Atheistic worldview"?
Quote: Nevertheless, I like the way
you think, (pretty good for social pragmatism I must say) but unfortunately for
Atheists it's just one of many opinions, for obviously not everyone does the
same to you even if you apply the golden rule to them, and not everyone believes
that the golden rule is the best way to avoid anarchy and
suffering.
If someone does something to me, I will retaliate
appropriately and seek an alliance with anyone who sought to protect themselves
from the harshness of the world just like me. It's the rise of civilization
Persocom. It's common sense.
What would you say is the best way to avoid anarchy and suffering?
Quote: I've seen arguments based on
DNA and fossil evidence, and they do not in any way prove
evolution.
That depends on who you ask. This jury member is
convinced.
Quote: Just because all programs
are witten in a common programming language for example C++ (analogy to DNA)
doesn't mean that they evolved from one another. In fact this should be expected
if there was a common designer.
Don't compare DNA to software
Persocom. And RNA/DNA are really just long molecules. Molecules are ubiquitous
if you didn't know and they support common descent as do fossils and
anatomical/genetic similarities between our ape 'cousins' and us. Common descent
is a likely consequence of Evolution but it does not support nor refute
Intelligent Design/Creationism. As a matter of fact, Natural Selection probably
also played a role in the evolution of RNA/DNA from more simple molecules in an
early Earth.
Quote: Just because windows 98
looks like windows 95 doesn't prove that they evolved from each other either.
(although imcomplete forms can be taken as evidence for evolution) As it is,
you've shown me absolutely no evidence that proves evolution and yet you
continue to believe in it with the reason "because most biologists believe
in it".
Yes it does. Organisms that are biologically
separated at one point will diverge as their environments begin to change
independently but they will still retain certain genetic similarities that don't
affect fitness in that environment.
Quote by Persocom01
I already said that:
1. It's an abuse of God's creation.
2. Sex does not equal love.
For married comples, point 1 does not apply. A non-lustful relationship is fine.
Actually I don't see any reason to call a non-lust relationship between people
of the same sex as homosexual. The only reason you call someone homosexual is
not because of the love he has for his (same sex) friend, but because of the
lust.
No, the reason you call it homosexual is between it's a love between two people
of the same sex. A heterosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be like a
boy who has a girlfriend and a homosexual relationship that is non-sexual would
be a boy who has a boyfriend. There isn't necessarily any sex involved, but it's
still homosexual because it's two people of the same sex who are in the
relationship instead of the opposite sex.
Quote by Persocom01I don't understand
what you mean, please explain in clearer terms. I don't see how God should not
be angry.
I don't think I can make it much clearer. Those people in the anime you listed
were angry because someone they cared for was injured, killed, etc. and they
couldn't stop it. God can stop suffering if God wishes and when people die,
they're still "alive" from God's POV. While those anime characters
might have an excuse to be angry, God doesn't because it is well within his
power to prevent any suffering he wants and being dead does not prevent God from
seeing you like it would a loved one.
Quote by Persocom01
Firstly you judge the morality of situations based on necessary suffering, then
you judge whether suffering is necessary based on the situation. It's circular
reasoning, and you just pretty much made your own definition of morality
meaningless.
I don't see how what I'm saying is circular, you might be misinterpreting what
I'm saying, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying what's necessary depends on the
situation. If it's necessary to have children, then it's not immoral to have
children even if it causes some suffering for the mother. If it's necessary to
kill a guy to prevent him from blowing up a hospital, then it's not immoral to
shoot him. There's nothing circular about judging each individual
situation.
Quote by Persocom01
No matter who you're talking about, they know what love is. An appeal to
compassion is an appeal to the law of God. I think you also failed to mention
that the abolitionists also had a Bibilcal basis (you replaced it with
"reason and appeals to human compassion" which is not mentioned
anywhere in your linked article) for their opposition of slavery. Unless you
tell me that the South thought it was a loving thing to do to enslave their own
children, it doesn't demonstrate that the moral law was in anyway different.
Having a Biblical basis doesn't mean you applied the Bible correctly, for even
Satan had a "Bibical basis[1]" when he tempted Jesus in the
desert.
No it's not an appeal to the law of God, it's understanding that people suffer
and that suffering has a negative effect on people, and therefore should be
avoided and eventually eliminated.
If by a "Biblical basis" you mean, "Jesus said to be nice to
people," that's not enough if you take into account that the Bible never
once condemns slavery, but instead merely regulates it (to my knowledge, that
is).
Quote: *Biblical passages
recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
*The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of
killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before
dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime,
because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
*Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery
-- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly
evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify
slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
*Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no
record of him having said anything negative about the
institution.
Quote by Persocom01
[1] Luke 4:9-12 - "And he brought Him to Jerusalem and sat Him on a
pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself
down from here. For it is written,
"He shall give His angels charge over You, to keep You; and in their hands
they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a
stone." And Jesus answering said to him, It has been said, "You
shall not tempt the Lord your God.""
Biblical contradiction?
Quote by Persocom01So you're saying
that Intelligent Design is science.
No because science is defined by scientists, and, unlike Christianity, Wicca,
atheism, etc. you can't be a scientist by saying you accept the principals of
science like the scientific method. Of course, you could always make a religion
like Sciencity and have the followers call themselves Scientists, but that would
just be confusing because words are meant to describe concepts. All I'm saying
is atheism seems to make most sense describing a particular concept because of
what it means when you break the word down and because atheists describe atheism
as a lack of a belief in any gods. Your free to define it however you want, but
it will just be confusing if you don't use the "right" definition
because when you talk to an "atheist" you'll actually be talking to an
"agnostic."
Quote by Persocom01So you're saying
that Buddhists, babies, and the mentally disabled self identify as Atheists. And
from the numbers of Buddhists, assuming 50% of them fit your definition and
babies do as well, I have doubt that the number of self-identifying Ahteists
will even reach 30% of the total number of people you identify as
Atheists.
I'm not saying they self-identify with it. The reason I think Buddhists, babies,
the mentally disabled, etc. should be considered atheists is because of my other
reason--what the word means when you break it down. That and that just because
Christians, for example, don't identify with theism doesn't mean they're not
theists. You can be something without identifying with it.
Quote by Persocom01
Under what circumstance would one be forced to be homosexual would you care to
elaborate? I believe the verdict on whether homosexuality is inheritable is
still out, so I wouldn't use that in an argument.
From the APA:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely
the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is
also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or
inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In
summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different
people."
God could easily prevent the environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Well, I can't say I disagree with you because I don't think people should have
sex except for procreation too. However, the difference is I don't think it's
immoral, I just think it's pointless. If you do something pointless, you're not
necessarily doing something that is immoral. I recall reading somewhere that it
sex helps to "bond" people (for lack of a better word) as well. I
don't know if that's true nor do I remember where I read it, but that's a
possible reason for homosexuals to have sex. Do you think married couples should
be able to have sex if the male does not intend on impregnating the female? And
do you think it's okay for homosexuals to be in a non-sexual relationship that
is more than just being friends?
I already said that:
1. It's an abuse of God's creation.
2. Sex does not equal love.
For married comples, point 1 does not apply. I also believe that while many
married couples not intend on impregnating the female, (as a priority) they will
still be happy if it does happen. (pregnancy is an uncertain thing after all,
you can't just decide when and where it happens unless you want to use in-vitro)
If they aren't willing to accept the child, then they should not be having
sex.
A non-lustful same sex relationship is fine. (includes but not limited to sex)
Actually I don't see any reason to call a non-lust relationship between people
of the same sex as homosexual. The only reason you call someone homosexual is
not because of the love he has for his (same sex) friend, but because of the
lust.
Quote by alexjohnc3
No, you're not wrong. God, however, isn't a person, has the power to prevent
suffering if he wills it, and I wouldn't think someone dying would matter all
that much to him if they go to Heaven. I'm just saying the anger of those
individuals was justified (not necessarily how they expressed that anger), while
God's anger isn't because God has no excuse.
I don't understand what you mean, please explain your logic in clearer terms. I
don't see how God should not be angry. (you can also wait till tomorrow when I'm
awake and can think about what you mean more clearly)
Quote by alexjohnc3
That isn't a flaw in my definition. What is necessary depends on the situation.
If our goal is to continue to exist, it is necessary to procreate. Since that
seems to be one of our goals, procreation is necessary. The necessity of
procreation appears to outweigh the suffering it causes individuals and
eliminating that suffering should be one of humanity's goals.
First you judge the morality of situations based on necessary suffering, then
you judge whether suffering is necessary based on the situation. It's circular reasoning, and you just pretty much made
your own definition of morality meaningless.
Quote by alexjohnc3
In regards to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
The main point to take away from that page is that when people in the northern
United States (the abolitionists) were fighting against the southern
slaver-owners, the slave-owners had a Biblical-basis for their ideas because the
Bible condoned slavery. The abolitionists had to fight using reason and appeals
to human compassion to overcome the many slave-owners in the Bible Belt of the
United States. Different cultures having different ideas about morality and
those people in the South were certain owning slaves was moral as were the
Japanese samurai who thought it was honorable and moral to kill yourself after
being defeated. As these go against compassion and reason and only worsened the
condition of humans, they were eventually removed from society as humanity
progressed.
No matter who you're talking about, they know what love is. An appeal to
compassion is an appeal to the law of God, and the fact that they appeal to it
implies that the other side knows what it is. I think you also failed to mention
that the abolitionists also had a Bibilcal basis (you replaced it with
"reason and appeals to human compassion" which is not mentioned
anywhere in your linked article) for their opposition of slavery. Unless you
tell me that the South thought it was a loving thing to do to enslave themselves
and own children, it doesn't demonstrate that the moral law was in anyway
different. Having a Biblical basis doesn't mean you applied the Bible correctly,
for even Satan had a "Bibical basis[1]" when he tempted Jesus in the
desert. Christians played the biggest (or one of the biggest) roles in the
worldwide abolition of slavery. You should note also that slavery wasn't a
Christian thing to begin with. It had been around long before, and when
Christians began to oppose it, they obviously faced oppostion from some fellow
Christians who wanted to keep slavery as it was.
References:
[1] Luke 4:9-12 - "And he brought Him to Jerusalem and sat Him on a
pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself
down from here. For it is written,
"He shall give His angels charge over You, to keep You; and in their hands
they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a
stone." And Jesus answering said to him, It has been said, "You
shall not tempt the Lord your God.""
Quote by alexjohnc3
Dictionaries are based on common usage, and most commonly, when people refer to
atheism, they're talking about the belief that no gods exist. I don't think
atheism should be defined by people who don't look at what those who consider
themselves atheists believe (or don't believe) and base the definition on that.
If everyone, except for those who consider themselves to be Wiccans, defined
Wicca as the belief that Jesus lives in Antarctica, that would not be a good
definition of Wicca, IMHO.
So you're saying that Intelligent Design is science. I won't go into the flaws
in your analogy but I hope you'll understand with just this.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not going back to it, it still is one reason I support defining atheism that
way, but I have more than one reason.
So you're saying that Buddhists, babies, and the mentally disabled self identify
as Atheists. And from the numbers of Buddhists, assuming 50% of them fit your
definition and babies do as well, I have doubts that the number of
self-identifying Atheists will even reach 30% of the total number of people you
identify as Atheists.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Many people don't have the choice of being heterosexual in that, because of
various circumstances (some they were born with, some not) they feel compelled
to be homosexual. That's hardly a choice. In this circumstance, it would be much
better if God made only one sex of human, for example. That would have also
saved us a lot of trouble with women being oppressed, harassed, etc. (and
sometimes just the opposite even). Giving humans a bit more intelligence and
altruism would have been nice too, just enough so that we would all understand
why we should be nice to each other and didn't have the urge to kill or hurt
each other would be good. We could still choose not to, but we would have no
desire to.
Under what circumstance would one be forced to be homosexual would you care to
elaborate? I believe the verdict on whether homosexuality is inheritable is
still out, so I wouldn't use that in an argument.
Quote by Persocom01
Nothing. Until they lust for each other that is. Obviously sons don't rape their
mothers even though they love them. Sex between homosexuals serves absolutely no
purpose except to serve lust, which is a form of evil. And what's wrong with
lust? I'll tell you a story about how eskimos kill wolves:
1. Take a sharp knife
2. Cover it with blood and freeze.
3. Repeat until knife is completely coated with blood.
4. Stick blood covered knife in the ground blade up.
5. Wolf dies of blood loss due to wounds inflicted by continuing to lick the
bloody knife.
The wolf is this case died of lust for blood. Lust results in destruction, and
is opposed to love.
Well, I can't say I disagree with you because I don't think people should have
sex except for procreation too. However, the difference is I don't think it's
immoral, I just think it's pointless. If you do something pointless, you're not
necessarily doing something that is immoral. I recall reading somewhere that it
sex helps to "bond" people (for lack of a better word) as well. I
don't know if that's true nor do I remember where I read it, but that's a
possible reason for homosexuals to have sex. Do you think married couples should
be able to have sex if the male does not intend on impregnating the female? And
do you think it's okay for homosexuals to be in a non-sexual relationship that
is more than just being friends?
Quote by Persocom01
I figured that any normal person would feel angry when some thy love is harmed
or killed, but perhaps I'm wrong.
No, you're not wrong. God, however, isn't a person, has the power to prevent
suffering if he wills it, and I wouldn't think someone dying would matter all
that much to him if they go to Heaven. I'm just saying the anger of those
individuals was justified (not necessarily how they expressed that anger), while
God's anger isn't because God has no excuse.
Quote by Persocom01I wouldn't call
homosexuality love at all. See first reply.
Homosexuality != (does not equal) Sex between two people of the same sex. See
first reply too. :P
Quote by Persocom01
I was waiting for your rely since you put a better hedged definition of morality
than programZERO. However your definitionis likewise flawed, because you do not
define what basis you judge whether pain is necessary.
That isn't a flaw in my definition. What is necessary depends on the situation.
If our goal is to continue to exist, it is necessary to procreate. Since that
seems to be one of our goals, procreation is necessary. The necessity of
procreation appears to outweigh the suffering it causes individuals and
eliminating that suffering should be one of humanity's goals.
Quote by Persocom01
Normal is a hedging term as I don't know about the state of mind of people who
are mentally unsound in some way, and it might not be provable that they know
what love is. Just because everyone knows the moral law doesn't mean that they
follow it. You can come up with 101 other examples of people acting against love
(slavery, human sacrifice etc...) but it doesn't in any way mean that God thinks
it is moral.
In regards to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
The main point to take away from that page is that when people in the northern
United States (the abolitionists) were fighting against the southern
slaver-owners, the slave-owners had a Biblical-basis for their ideas because the
Bible condoned slavery. The abolitionists had to fight using reason and appeals
to human compassion to overcome the many slave-owners in the Bible Belt of the
United States. Different cultures having different ideas about morality and
those people in the South were certain owning slaves was moral as were the
Japanese samurai who thought it was honorable and moral to kill yourself after
being defeated. As these go against compassion and reason and only worsened the
condition of humans, they were eventually removed from society as humanity
progressed.
Quote by Persocom01
They quoted many reputable dictionaries in their article if you read all of it.
And while I'm not familiar with all dictionaries, they did say that no reputable
dictionary defines atheism as a "lack of belief". According to
dictionary.com:
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that
there is no God.
Dictionaries are based on common usage, and most commonly, when people refer to
atheism, they're talking about the belief that no gods exist. I don't think
atheism should be defined by people who don't look at what those who consider
themselves atheists believe (or don't believe) and base the definition on that.
If everyone, except for those who consider themselves to be Wiccans, defined
Wicca as the belief that Jesus lives in Antarctica, that would not be a good
definition of Wicca, IMHO.
Quote by Persocom01
You're going back on your original supporting reason for defining Atheism as a
lack of belief
I'm not going back to it, it still is one reason I support defining atheism that
way, but I have more than one reason.
Quote by Persocom01
What if he wanted people to have a choice? God of course could have forced you
to do anything. But obedience without choice is one of compulsion, not love.
It's nonsensical to say "my computer loves me because it serves me"
because your computer had no choice in the matter. However if your dog decides
to stay with you instead of your next door neighbour, you can say: "my dog
loves me more than my next door neighbour".
Many people don't have the choice of being heterosexual in that, because of
various circumstances (some they were born with, some not) they feel compelled
to be homosexual. That's hardly a choice. In this circumstance, it would be much
better if God made only one sex of human, for example. That would have also
saved us a lot of trouble with women being oppressed, harassed, etc. (and
sometimes just the opposite even). Giving humans a bit more intelligence and
altruism would have been nice too, just enough so that we would all understand
why we should be nice to each other and didn't have the urge to kill or hurt
each other would be good. We could still choose not to, but we would have no
desire to.
Quote by Persocom01Sorry for sounding
so critical, I found the reason you gave too absurd and felt you weren't
thinking rationally.
Quote by ProgramZEROLife isn't so
simple Persocom01. A pregnancy may cause pain but it doesn't really cause the
woman mental stress... As far as I know. Most, if not, all women consider child
birth a joyful experience... After delivery of
course.
You're just redefining your(flawed) definition on an ad hoc basis. As long as
pain causes the person joy it must be moral I see. Masochism must be moral in
your opinion I guess. Trying to sound wise with your "Life isn't so
simple"? You fool. You can't even recognise that your definition of
morailty is too simple for life. It is also untrue that physical pain does not
cause mental stress. It does. Tell me what your state of mind would be if you
accidentally rammed a hammer on your finger. (calm?)
Quote by ProgramZEROOne should uphold
the golden rule in hopes that others may do the same and thus avoid anarchy and
suffering.
Imo you should save yourself time instead of offering more baseless
(materialistically speaking) reasons for upholding the golden rule. It is merely
an opinion on your part as you are unable to derive such a law from an Atheistic
worldview. (imo it's impossible, but good luck trying) I know you for your
endless supply of excuses, (and half baked refutations) more than half of which
I never bothered replying.
Nevertheless, I ike the way you think, (pretty good for social pragmatism I must
say) but unfortunately for Atheists it's just one of many opinions, for
obviously not everyone does the same to you even if you apply the golden rule to
them, and not everyone believes that the golden rule is the best way to avoid
anarchy and suffering.
Quote by ProgramZEROUnderstandable
but that belief was based on THAT time's knowledge when people reasoned that the
sun revolved around the Earth simply because they witnessed the sun rise in one
horizon and set in another. The belief that the Earth might've been the one in
movement was never seriously considered because they themselves did not see
themselves in movement. Thankfully, Galileo was there to lead us in the right
direction. Today, we have telescopes and a better understanding of physics and
such. Today, we have DNA testing, fossils, and undeniable observations of
mechanisms in nature that promote survival of the
fittest.
I've seen arguments based on DNA and fossil evidence, and they do not in any way
prove evolution. Just because all programs are witten in a common programming
language for example C++ (analogy to DNA) doesn't mean that they evolved from
one another. In fact this should be expected if there was a common designer.
Just because windows 98 looks like windows 95 doesn't prove that they evolved
from each other either. (although imcomplete forms can be taken as evidence for
evolution) As it is, you've shown me absolutely no evidence that proves
evolution and yet you continue to believe in it with the reason "because
most biologists believe in it".
merged: 12-09-2007 ~ 10:45pm
Quote by alexjohnc3
So what's wrong with homosexuals loving each other if God's standard is
love?
Nothing. Until they lust for each other that is. Obviously sons don't rape their
mothers even though they love them. Sex between homosexuals serves absolutely no
purpose except to serve lust, which is a form of evil. And what's wrong with
lust? I'll tell you a story about how eskimos kill wolves:
1. Take a sharp knife
2. Cover it with blood and freeze.
3. Repeat until knife is completely coated with blood.
4. Stick blood covered knife in the ground blade up.
5. Wolf dies of blood loss due to wounds inflicted by continuing to lick the
bloody knife.
The wolf is this case died of lust for blood. Lust results in destruction, and
is opposed to love.
Quote by alexjohnc3
No, those actions were taken out of anger, not out of love for a friend. The
anger was a result of the fact that someone they cared for died and their
inability to prevent that death. God, on the other hand, would have no such
excuse.
I figured that any normal person would feel angry when some thy love is harmed
or killed, but perhaps I'm wrong. If you still want to debate me on this I'll
give a more detailed reply.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Homosexuality violates God's standard that we should love God because God didn't
design humans to be homosexual just as Einstein didn't write pages of his books
to be used as toilet paper? That makes no sense because homosexuals aren't pages
in a book, they're human beings. One male loving another male instead of a
female human isn't at all like using a computer as a hammer either. I'm not sure
if I should bother talking about this anymore because I don't want to deal with
someone who's sexist as well.
I wouldn't call homosexuality love at all. See first reply.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Note that ProgramZero said morality was relative, not absolute. I personally
detest hedonism, for example. This is because I think hedonism will lead to a
sad society based entirely around pleasure that won't have any concern for
learning or progress.
I would say that pregnancy would be "immoral" if it wasn't necessary
in that people shouldn't hurt themselves.
I was waiting for your rely since you put a better hedged definition of morality
than programZERO. However your definition is likewise flawed, because you do not
define what basis you judge whether pain is necessary.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I noticed you used the word "normal" before "person." There
are many people who don't think the "moral law" is necessary or have
different ideas of morality. In Japan, for instance, samurai often committed
Seppuku. Does your god consider Seppuku immoral even though Japanese people had
the "moral law" inside of them?
Normal is a hedging term as I don't know about the state of mind of people who
are mentally unsound in some way, and it might not be provable that they know
what love is. Just because everyone knows the moral law doesn't mean that they
follow it. You can come up with 101 other examples of people acting against love
(slavery, human sacrifice etc...) but it doesn't in any way mean that God thinks
it is moral.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I could be wrong of course. This is based off of my experience and the only
example I recall of someone not defining atheism that way was the owner of
EvilBible.com, but I don't like that site very much anyway. I just think that
because a- means "non" or "without" and theism means belief
in any gods, atheism should mean non-belief or without belief in any
gods.
They quoted many reputable dictionaries in their article if you read all of it.
And while I'm not familiar with all dictionaries, they did say that no reputable
dictionary defines atheism as a "lack of belief". According to
dictionary.com:
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that
there is no God.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't think most Christians self-identify with theism either, but they're
still theists. The fact that I think most self-identified atheists don't define
atheism as the denial of gods existence isn't my main reason. I just think it's
semantic and the most logical definition for the
word.
You're going back on your original supporting reason for defining Atheism as a
lack of belief:
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define
atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
It seems that you did not bother refuting your own argument when you used it.
Granted, I recognise that my definition of Atheism is narrower, but I think it's
the most appropriate definition to describe the kind of Atheism you and most
here advocate.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not "blaming God" for anything. I'm just saying that if God wanted
everyone to be heterosexual, God could have prevented people from becoming
homosexual with ease.
What if he wanted people to have a choice? God of course could have forced you
to do anything. But obedience without choice is one of compulsion, not love.
It's nonsensical to say "my computer loves me because it serves me"
because your computer had no choice in the matter. However if your dog decides
to stay with you instead of your next door neighbour, you can say: "my dog
loves me more than my next door neighbour".
Quote by alexjohnc3
Rationalize my beliefs? I don't believe any of those things are God's fault nor
do I blame God for them. It's merely under the condition that God exists and is
thus hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. If God existed, it shouldn't have
been very hard to design humans so that they couldn't drown or choke on the very
thing that nourishes them.
Sorry for sounding so critical, I found the reason you gave too absurd and felt
you weren't thinking rationally.
Quote by Persocom01 1. God's standard is Love. That is all.
Of course, not just any love, as love must be directed at something or someone.
If one loved money above all else one would do anything for it, be it
backstabbing, betrayal etc etc. God's standard is more properly defined as the
following[1]:
a. Love God.
b. Love your neighbour as yourself.
So what's wrong with homosexuals loving each other if God's standard is
love?
Quote by Persocom01the actual document
exists on infidels.org, but I don't want to waste my time finding it just to add
to my reference list - I think my references aren't always appreciated anyway,
and I don't think it's necessary for me to provide the reference to this to be
believable
Don't worry, I try to assume good faith so you don't need to bother referencing
everything.
Quote by Persocom01After all, at one
point God said "You shall not kill[2]" yet at other points of time God
orders Israel to annihilate a group of people. However it's not true that God's
standard has in any way changed. It was the same before and after. Occurances
where God seems to command something that goes against the law are instances of
judgement as a result of a breaking of the law by pepole. You might also ask how
this demonstrates love in any way, but it does, and indeed makes a great deal of
sense. A great deal of fighting is actually caused by Love in animation. In
Utawarerumono the main character wipes out the remnant of the human race (and
causing human extinction) after human scientists dissected his wife for
experimental purposes. Naruto almost went beserk when he thought Sasuke was
killed. Subaru in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS similarly went beserk
after her sister was beaten and taken by enemies
2b. In all these cases, action was taken
not out of hatred of enemies, but out of love for a friend, family
etc...
No, those actions were taken out of anger, not out of love for a friend. The
anger was a result of the fact that someone they cared for died and their
inability to prevent that death. God, on the other hand, would have no such
excuse.
Quote by Persocom01 3. That being said homosexuality violates
God's standard a. Love God. If I wrote a beautiful piece of music on a piece of
paper, and you use it to pick up dog poop, obviously you are violating the law
of love. Sure, using Einstein's books as toilet paper in the same way doesn't
harm anyone directly yet violates the law of love. (other examples: using a a
friend gave you as computer as a hammer, or a piece of art as a shoerack)
Homosexuality is a blatant abuse of God's creation. (humans are the pinacle of
his creation too) You're wrong that God's standard is "to get people to
reproduce". It is love. All other laws that people come up with that are
good are derived from love.
Homosexuality violates God's standard that we should love God because God didn't
design humans to be homosexual just as Einstein didn't write pages of his books
to be used as toilet paper? That makes no sense because homosexuals aren't pages
in a book, they're human beings. One male loving another male instead of a
female human isn't at all like using a computer as a hammer either. I'm not sure
if I should bother talking about this anymore because I don't want to deal with
someone who's sexist as well.
Quote by Persocom01
Even an atheist appeals to the law of God in this case. However since his
version is derived, and not fundamental, there are flaws. For example since
pregnancy causes pain, pregnancy is immoral. (in the case when the society does
not require new infants) Moreover the problem with Atheistic attempts at morals
is that they are not universal. Why should we care about the welfare of society
at all? Clarence Darrow, a famous materialist, based his morals on pleasure[3].
Indeed Atheistic morals aren't laws at all, but rather conventions or mere
opinions. (for more on the difference between Christian and Atheist stands on
morality ask me on guestbook)
Note that ProgramZero said morality was relative, not absolute. I personally
detest hedonism, for example. This is because I think hedonism will lead to a
sad society based entirely around pleasure that won't have any concern for
learning or progress.
I would say that pregnancy would be "immoral" if it wasn't necessary
in that people shouldn't hurt themselves.
Quote by Persocom01 4. I've argued with you (alexjohnc3) and
a few others as well that everyone knows the moral law. And while I can't prove
this, I stand by this view, for I believe that every normal person in the world,
regardless of when they were born, or what society they are born in, has an idea
what true love is, even if they are sometimes slightly mistaken in some cases.
Love is known by many names. Kindness, graciousness, benevolence, righteousness,
gentleness etc etc
I noticed you used the word "normal" before "person." There
are many people who don't think the "moral law" is necessary or have
different ideas of morality. In Japan, for instance, samurai often committed
Seppuku. Does your god consider Seppuku immoral even though Japanese people had
the "moral law" inside of them?
Quote by alexjohnc3
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you
say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking
about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in
base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides
a good summary:
I'm glad you recognise that, for I seriously felt like hitting my head against
the wall when he tried to rebutt me with that.
I know enough to know that trying to compare numbers like that person did makes
no sense. :P
Quote by alexjohnc3
Define atheism however you want, but then know that many, if not most, people
who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition. I think that
atheism is best defined as a lack of theism (belief in any gods) because it
seems more semantic to me and, to my knowledge, most people who consider
themselves atheists define atheism as such.
Well since you present no evidence of this, I don't know if I should believe you
or not.
I could be wrong of course. This is based off of my experience and the only
example I recall of someone not defining atheism that way was the owner of
EvilBible.com, but I don't like that site very much anyway. I just think that
because a- means "non" or "without" and theism means belief
in any gods, atheism should mean non-belief or without belief in any
gods.
Quote by Persocom01
That being said, these are perfect examples of what Atheists like to say, which
is why I use Scientific Materialism as my
definition:
I think kaireon is trying to say that if Christianity is shown to be false, then
will you continue to be a Christian? Not necessarily through new scientific
discoveries.
Quote by Persocom01
While it does not perfectly justify my definition of Atheism, I do not believe
that most Atheists will suddenly be declassified as Atheists just for that
reason. Moreover, by your definition, most people whom you classify as Atheists
do not self identify as Atheists imo. (Buddhists I bet, and there are many many
of them)
I don't think most Christians self-identify with theism either, but they're
still theists. The fact that I think most self-identified atheists don't define
atheism as the denial of gods existence isn't my main reason. I just think it's
semantic and the most logical definition for the word.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I can understand why God might not want humans to be homosexual, but then he's
to blame for not thinking of a better way to encourage humans to reproduce other
than through pleasure and for allowing humans to have biological tendencies
towards homosexuality (at the very least, heterosexuality isn't ingrained
strongly enough in humans if God doesn't want
homosexuality).
I guess you're saying that God should have idiot-proofed sex. Like making a
penis incapable of being stuck into anything except a woman perhaps. Although
I've never had a problem with homosexuality in my experience, while you're
blaming God for it
I'm not "blaming God" for anything. I'm just saying that if God wanted
everyone to be heterosexual, God could have prevented people from becoming
homosexual with ease.
Quote by Persocom01
I'll give you a list of other things to blame God for:
1. Drowning.
2. Falling down stairs.
3. Choking on food.
4. People killing each other. (should sound familiar)
5. Failing exams.
6. Anorexia.
7. Walking into lamp posts.
8. Cruelty to animals.
9. Tripping and falling.
10. Getting drunk.
It's always God's fault as usual, and I'm sure you can find plenty of other ways
to rationalize your beliefs. He should have designed a better way of eating,
sleeping, breathing, walking etc etc...
Rationalize my beliefs? I don't believe any of those things are God's fault nor
do I blame God for them. It's merely under the condition that God exists and is
thus hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. If God existed, it shouldn't have
been very hard to design humans so that they couldn't drown or choke on the very
thing that nourishes them.
Quote by Persocom01This is known as
the bandwagon fallacy. At one point in history the majority of scientists though
that God created the universe. Their beliefs didn't in any way change the truth
of the matter, nor are the beliefs of the majority necessarily the
truth.
Quote by Persocom01This shows that
there are instances where your definition does not hold true, and proves my
point that it is flawed.
Life isn't so simple Persocom01. A
pregnancy may cause pain but it doesn't really cause the woman mental stress...
As far as I know. Most, if not, all women consider child birth a joyful
experience... After delivery of course.
Quote: And why should we follow the
golden rule? You have given absolutely no logical explanation from the Atheistic
world view why you should in any way uphold the golden rule. Then again, it's
not surprising that you're appealing to an invisible standard. It's been my
stand that everyone knows this standard, which is the reason why consensus tends
to give a fairly accurate representation of this
standard.
One should uphold the golden rule in hopes that
others may do the same and thus avoid anarchy and suffering.
Quote: This is known as the
bandwagon fallacy. At one point in history the majority of scientists though
that the sun revolved around the earth. Their beliefs didn't in any way change
the truth of the matter, nor are the beliefs of the majority necessarily the
truth.
Understandable but that belief was based on THAT
time's knowledge when people reasoned that the sun revolved around the Earth
simply because they witnessed the sun rise in one horizon and set in another.
The belief that the Earth might've been the one in movement was never seriously
considered because they themselves did not see themselves in movement.
Thankfully, Galileo was there to lead us in the right direction. Today, we have
telescopes and a better understanding of physics and such. Today, we have DNA
testing, fossils, and undeniable observations of mechanisms in nature that
promote survival of the fittest.
Quote by ProgramZERO
Well, pregnancy is a special case since a woman who goes through pregnancy is a
willing participant... Unless they were raped or something.
Come now Persocom01, you know what I mean. A job can be a pain but you get a
paycheck for it at the end of the day. LOL!
This shows that there are instances where your definition does not hold true,
and proves my point that it is flawed.
Quote by ProgramZERO
One should care for the welfare of society because everyone is a part of
society. It's the golden rule.
Yes, morality is opinion, hence it is not universal. And laws are made based on
popular opinion Persocom01. It's the legislative branch of government that
passes laws voted on by people elected by the governed.
And why should we follow the golden rule? You have given absolutely no logical
explanation from the Atheistic world view why you should in any way uphold the
golden rule. Then again, it's not surprising that you're appealing to an
invisible standard. It's been my stand that everyone knows this standard, which
is the reason why consensus tends to give a fairly accurate representation of
this standard.
Quote by ProgramZERO
Yes, I do. There may be differing opinions upon some things in the mainstream
scientific community but I do believe that the majority of biologists would
agree that evolution did in fact occur. It's the how, not the what, that is
contested.
This is known as the bandwagon fallacy. At one point in history the majority of
scientists though that the sun revolved around the earth. Their beliefs didn't
in any way change the truth of the matter, nor are the beliefs of the majority
necessarily the truth.
Quote by Persocom01Even an atheist
appeals to the law of God in this case. However since his version is derived,
and not fundamental, there are flaws. For example since pregnancy causes pain,
pregnancy is immoral. (in the case when the society does not require new
infants) Moreover the problem with Atheistic attempts at morals is that they are
not universal. Why should we care about the welfare of society at all? Clarence
Darrow, a famous materialist, based his morals on pleasure[3]. Indeed Atheistic
morals aren't laws at all, but rather conventions or mere opinions. (for more on
the difference between Christian and Atheist stands on morality ask me on
guestbook)
Well, pregnancy is a special case since a woman
who goes through pregnancy is a willing participant... Unless they were raped or
something.
Come now Persocom01, you know what I mean. A job can be a pain but you get a
paycheck for it at the end of the day. LOL!
One should care for the welfare of society because everyone is a part of
society. It's the golden rule.
Yes, morality is opinion, hence it is not universal. And laws are made based on
popular opinion Persocom01. It's the legislative branch of government that
passes laws voted on by people elected by the governed.
Quote: Nothing wrong with this,
besides that often ProgramZERO fails to recognise that Darwin Science is alot
about interpretation, (and a great deal of it has more than 1 'alternative'
answer) but still, he places his wholehearted faith in
it.
Yes, I do. There may be differing opinions upon some
things in the mainstream scientific community but I do believe that the majority
of biologists would agree that evolution did in fact occur. It's the how, not
the what, that is contested.
Table of Contents:
1. The Law of God.
2. Explaining some objections
3. Homosexuality
4. Personal reply to alexjohnc3
Quote by alexjohnc3For morality, one
needs to set a "standard" of some sort. If I believe causing others to
suffer unnecessarily is immoral, then stabbing people is something that would be
unacceptable to me. If God exists, the same would be true for him as God would
be the one dictating what is and is not moral based on God's
"standard". While our standards are based on the environment we've
been raised in and some biological aspects (which is why many people have
differing views on morality, such as some religious terrorists who think it's
okay to blow stuff up if they think their God wants them to), God's standards
could be something like "homosexuality is immoral because my goal is to get
people to reproduce." So homosexuality would be immoral in that God didn't
want us to be homosexual as it doesn't have any "benefits," like
producing children, which would be God's purpose for sexuality. (I just read the
part of your post that says this. Looks like I was right. :P )
1. God's standard is Love. That is all.
Of course, not just any love, as love must be directed at something or someone.
If one loved money above all else one would do anything for it, be it
backstabbing, betrayal etc etc. God's standard is more properly defined as the
following[1]:
a. Love God.
b. Love your neighbour as yourself.
2a. Some Atheistic literature I've read
complains's that God's morality changes. (the actual document exists on
infidels.org, but I don't want to waste my time finding it just to add to my
reference list - I think my references aren't always appreciated anyway, and I
don't think it's necessary for me to provide the reference to this to be
believable) After all, at one point God said "You shall not kill[2]"
yet at other points of time God orders Israel to annihilate a group of people.
However it's not true that God's standard has in any way changed. It was the
same before and after. Occurances where God seems to command something that goes
against the law are instances of judgement as a result of a breaking of the law
by pepole. You might also ask how this demonstrates love in any way, but it
does, and indeed makes a great deal of sense. A great deal of fighting is
actually caused by Love in animation. In Utawarerumono the main character wipes
out the remnant of the human race (and causing human extinction) after human
scientists dissected his wife for experimental purposes. Naruto almost went
beserk when he thought Sasuke was killed. Subaru in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
StrikerS similarly went beserk after her sister was beaten and taken by
enemies:
Subaru from Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS ep 17
"And the third angel poured out his vial on the rivers and fountains of
waters, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say,
Righteous is the Lord, who is, and was, and who will be, because You have judged
these things, since they have poured
out the blood of the saints and prophets; and You gave them blood to drink, for
they were deserving." - Revelation 16:4-6
2b. In all these cases, action was taken
not out of hatred of enemies, but out of love for a friend, family etc... This
is not to say that all of the actions taken by the fomer characters were right,
(although some are) as we sometimes fail to judge the appropriate amount of
judgement to met out and exceed what would otherwise have been the right amount.
Moreover in most (or all) situations the offer of grace should preceed
judgement, as God's model in the revelations seems to suggest. (explaining would
lengthen the post so I'll leave this out. Ask me on guestbook if you wish to
know) For Christians remember that between God's judgement and human judgement,
God's judgement is prefered, so unless actions taken will in some way prevent
future harm from being done it is preferable that judgement always be left to
God, even if it is justified.
3. That being said homosexuality violates
God's standard a. Love God. If I wrote a beautiful piece of music on a piece of
paper, and you use it to pick up dog poop, obviously you are violating the law
of love. Sure, using Einstein's books as toilet paper in the same way doesn't
harm anyone directly yet violates the law of love. (other examples: using a a
friend gave you as computer as a hammer, or a piece of art as a shoerack)
Homosexuality is a blatant abuse of God's creation. (humans are the pinacle of
his creation too) You're wrong that God's standard is "to get people to
reproduce". It is love. All other laws that people come up with that are
good are derived from love. Example of derived law:
Quote by ProgramZERO
No, there isn't. Morality is relative, not absolute. I myself define morality as
the property of whether something contributes to, detracts from, or has no
effect on the standard of living of a society. Anything that causes pain/suffering is immoral. Anything else
either contributes or is neutral. Homosexuality is neutral since it does not
detract from society in any way hence I see nothing wrong with
homosexuality.
Even an atheist appeals to the law of God in this case. However since his
version is derived, and not fundamental, there are flaws. For example since
pregnancy causes pain, pregnancy is immoral. (in the case when the society does
not require new infants) Moreover the problem with Atheistic attempts at morals
is that they are not universal. Why should we care about the welfare of society
at all? Clarence Darrow, a famous materialist, based his morals on pleasure[3].
Indeed Atheistic morals aren't laws at all, but rather conventions or mere
opinions. (for more on the difference between Christian and Atheist stands on
morality ask me on guestbook)
4. I've argued with you (alexjohnc3) and
a few others as well that everyone knows the moral law. And while I can't prove
this, I stand by this view, for I believe that every normal person in the world,
regardless of when they were born, or what society they are born in, has an idea
what true love is, even if they are sometimes slightly mistaken in some cases.
Love is known by many names. Kindness, graciousness, benevolence, righteousness,
gentleness etc etc:
"Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or
vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited, And never is she rude, Never does
she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful, Is never glad
with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win. She
bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her
hope, And never will she fall. Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies,
they will be done away with. If there are tongues, they will cease. If there is
knowledge, it will be done away with." - 1 Corinthians 13:4
References:
[1] Luke 10:27 - "And answering, he said, You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and
with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
[2] Deuteronomy 5:17 - "You shall not kill."
[3] Meet the Materialists, part 5: Clarence Darrow - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/meet_the_materialists_pt_6_cla.html
Other comments:
There are some holes in my article which I did not explain in detail, so for
clarification feel free to post on my guestbook.
I'll also like to hear ProgramZERO's view on whether Zoophillia or Bestiality
(sex between people and animals) is right or wrong.
Edit history:
I believe I'm mistaken about one small but important point in section 2, and
thus have made changes to reflect this.
--------------------------------------------
Quote by alexjohnc3
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you
say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking
about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in
base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides
a good summary:
I'm glad you recognise that, for I seriously felt like hitting my head against
the wall when he tried to rebutt me with that.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Define atheism however you want, but then know that many, if not most, people
who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition. I think that
atheism is best defined as a lack of theism (belief in any gods) because it
seems more semantic to me and, to my knowledge, most people who consider
themselves atheists define atheism as such.
Well since you present no evidence of this, I don't know if I should believe you
or not. That being said, these are perfect examples of what Atheists like to
say, which is why I use Scientific
Materialism as my definition:
Quote by Devildude
you know, referring to some etnics posting I did below.
As far as "telling people to be nice to one another" most religions
fail at this miserably. When I say religion, I'm referring to a
belief in a supreme, supernatural being who created the
universe.
Quote by ProgramZERO
But seriously, I find it funny that board members would choose what should be
taught in Biology class. That should be left up to the scientific community and, more
importantly, what evidence demonstrates to be true.
Nothing wrong with this, besides that often ProgramZERO fails to recognise that
Darwin Science is alot about interpretation, (and a great deal of it has more
than 1 'alternative' answer) but still, he places his wholehearted faith in
it.
While it does not perfectly justify my definition of Atheism, I do not believe
that most Atheists will suddenly be declassified as Atheists just for that
reason. Moreover, by your definition, most people whom you classify as Atheists
do not self identify as Atheists imo. (Buddhists I bet, and there are many many
of them)
Quote by alexjohnc3
I can understand why God might not want humans to be homosexual, but then he's
to blame for not thinking of a better way to encourage humans to reproduce other
than through pleasure and for allowing humans to have biological tendencies
towards homosexuality (at the very least, heterosexuality isn't ingrained
strongly enough in humans if God doesn't want
homosexuality).
I guess you're saying that God should have idiot-proofed sex. Like making a
penis incapable of being stuck into anything except a woman perhaps. Although
I've never had a problem with homosexuality in my experience, while you're
blaming God for it I'll give you a list of other things to blame God
for:
1. Drowning.
2. Falling down stairs.
3. Choking on food.
4. People killing each other. (should sound familiar)
5. Failing exams.
6. Anorexia.
7. Walking into lamp posts.
8. Cruelty to animals.
9. Tripping and falling.
10. Getting drunk.
It's always God's fault as usual, and I'm sure you can find plenty of other ways
to rationalize your beliefs. He should have designed a better way of eating,
sleeping, breathing, walking etc etc...
LOL! I wish I was there to listen to people speak of the FSM
as if he were a real entity (which he is). Does this make Italian restaurants
churches of Pastafarians?...
But seriously, I find it funny that board members would choose what should be
taught in Biology class. That should be left up to the scientific community and,
more importantly, what evidence demonstrates to be true.
Quote by melymayNope, haven't herad of it
at all. Oh joy, it's probably going to be bad if they get that fountain of youth
thing going on. If so, I'm bringing up my kids in the world of assassins and
killers. Overpopulation doesn't sound too good to me.
That
fountain of youth sounds like a Pandora's Box to me... Although most people who
somehow achieve eternal youth would disagree.
Nope, haven't herad of it at all. Oh joy, it's probably going to be bad if they
get that fountain of youth thing going on. If so, I'm bringing up my kids in the
world of assassins and killers. Overpopulation doesn't sound too good to me.
For morality, one needs to set a "standard" of some sort. If I believe
causing others to suffer unnecessarily is immoral, then stabbing people is
something that would be unacceptable to me. If God exists, the same would be
true for him as God would be the one dictating what is and is not moral based on
God's "standard". While our standards are based on the environment
we've been raised in and some biological aspects (which is why many people have
differing views on morality, such as some religious terrorists who think it's
okay to blow stuff up if they think their God wants them to), God's standards
could be something like "homosexuality is immoral because my goal is to get
people to reproduce." So homosexuality would be immoral in that God didn't
want us to be homosexual as it doesn't have any "benefits," like
producing children, which would be God's purpose for sexuality. (I just read the
part of your post that says this. Looks like I was right. :P )
Quote: It does not matter if it's
self imposed. I'm merely informing you that there are deviations from the norm:
not everyone is the same and live to the same principals you do. 2+2=10, in base
4. 1+1 is 10 in base 2. etc.
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you
say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking
about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in
base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides
a good summary:
Quote: In order to discuss bases
other than the decimal system (base ten), a distinction needs to be made between
a number and the digit representing that number. In the decimal positional
numeral system, there are ten possible digits in each position. These are
"0", "1", "2", "3", "4",
"5", "6", "7", "8" , and "9"
(henceforth "0-9"). In other bases, the digits used may be unfamiliar
to us or may be used to indicate numbers other than those they represent in the
I call it productive discussion...
Well this is nice. We're arguing. About what, I have no clue. I'd rather not read the whole conversation though. It'll probably take me a really long time to understand.
Edit, 2007-12-24: Can we do this on each other's guestbook instead of on the group's if you want?
Edit 2, 2007-12-24: On second thought, I have too much work to bother with you anymore. Feel free to post on ProgramZERO's guestbook if he wants to keep trying to get you to think, but I'm pretty sure it's futile. Hope you have fun spreading ignorance across the world. Maybe--if you're lucky that is--the world will be ruled by Christian theocracy. Except this time they'll have nuclear weapons and even more powerful propaganda, among many other things.
Do have some of trouble understanding what I'm saying? It's not very difficult. Perhaps you should try a little bit harder. If you know anything about the English language, you know what a boyfriend and a girlfriend are and you would not call someone who is merely a friend and who is male a "boyfriend". If you want to though, feel free to, but I've got the feeling that you're just trying to annoy me because you don't want to confront what I'm actually saying so instead you get off topic like this, as usual.
In the end, I know that all you'll be able to say is that homosexuality is wrong because God doesn't like it since that's not the way God intended for people to have sex. I doubt you consider a male having a male boyfriend to be moral, even if they don't have sex, and that's what I'm trying to verify.
If you knew you could easily stop a dagger from hitting your friends all the time, I don't see why you'd be angry with the person who threw it. Perhaps you wouldn't want them to try to hurt your friends, but if it's completely within your power to stop it, then the one you should be most upset with is yourself for not stopping it. When people die, they're "taken away" from you, but they wouldn't, supposedly, be taken away from God so God has no reason to be upset at their death. In fact, God should be happy that they now have a much better quality of life after dying.
The basis for the judgment depends on one's goals. If you don't want people to suffer, you try to prevent suffering. That's the basis for an individual's morality.
Because I want to. It's called empathy, you may have heard of it. Here's a pretty good definition: "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." I am able to empathize with others, so therefore I can sort of tell what they're feeling and I can try to prevent them from suffering.
So if you're correct,that still leaves:
It's surprising to me that something inspired by God that is completely perfect would be able to be abused like that.
Why would I know who coined the word and how is that relevant?
It's called a scientific consensus. Of course there will be some disagreement and of course there are some ID proponents who are scientists, just as there are some astrologists who are scientists. The difference is they are far fewer in number than in the general population.
This might be useful to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
-ism can denote a condition or quality, not a belief.
-ism:
1. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
2. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism.
3. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
4. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
I'm not "going back" to my original reason. I have more than one reason. You should be able to understand this, but I guess you just can't.
What they're saying is that humans can't choose to be gay or straight, i.e., they can't choose which gender their attracted to. You might as well say, "secular atheist deterministic physical materialism". It's getting kind of annoying now. What's the difference between physical determinism and determinism?
Sorry, it's just that the above quote makes it seem like that was what you were suggesting.
Yes but your argument is that since computer code was obviously designed then RNA/DNA must've also been designed since they share the role of running something whether it be a cell or computer when both are not exactly alike. Abiogenesis can explain RNA/DNA. Abiogenesis obviously doesn't apply to computer code which we know is man-made.
I post in hopes of you responding back. When you don't respond or refuse to respond, I get the last word without the intent. If my responses are weak, people will see that so you've nothing to worry about. Just because I get the last word whether by default or purposefully matters not if my argument is weak which most people should be able to see.
Well, that's simply the word the biologist used to describe RDNA. (I've shortened RNA/DNA)
Only more reason not to compare computer code to RDNA. The only RDNA that matters is the one that replicates. Otherwise, it's just another compound.
Well, evolution occurs via exaptations, not radical mutations such as wings on a dog. Of course, once an organism evolves new features, it has diverged to the point where common ancestry isn't always so obvious. I for example had no idea that whales and hippos shared ancestry although it makes sense.
Of course. We can't travel back in time so we're stuck theorizing.
That's because it would take a long time and large amounts of resources to prove punctuated equilibrium. I say if it's the only one that explains it then it must be so... Until someone else presents another believable hypothesis.
I never said that they did.
You're commiting the red herring logical fallacy. Whether or not DNA is subject to selection or not doesn't change the fact that it is essentially information for the running of a cell, just as software is information for the running of a computer. Sorry if I sound offensive, but frankly that's what I think of most your replies. You appear to me to be writing for the sake of writing or having the last word, regardless of whether your reply is a good argument or not, and regardless of whether your reply was relevant or not. See reply 1.
""Junk DNA" is actually the "software" that allowed complex organisms to evolve, according to an Australian molecular biologist." - http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s594118.htm
Other comments:
We don't design computer programs to replicate because that would turn them into viruses. We like them just the way they are - sitting benign until the user replicates it.
You should also know that divergence (longer fur in rabbits, dog having longer ears etc) doesn't prove evolution any more than design unless it goes to the extent of creating new features. (new eye for a worm, wings for a dog etc...)
Yes of course there's almost always an alternative theory. (good point though) It might be interesting to note that Darwin once thought that a lack of transitional fossils would be evidence against his theory. Of course, that was before punctuated equilibrium (the hypothesis that evolution was so fast during the fossil gaps that it was not captured, and at other times did not occur at all) came to the rescue. (thus making it irrelevant whether transitional fossils are found or not) Nevertheless proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today[1], not that either can be proven.
References:
[1] Theory still rocks scientists' equilibrium - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/05/27/MN226754.DTL
Yes, okay, now I do. No, Atheists don't use Evolution to determine their morality. I'm one example of this.
Persocom, there's no need to get offensive. If my responses suck, it only makes your job easier.
RNA/DNA is prone to natural selection, recombination, and mutation. Computer code sits in someone's office and stays the same until someone decides to change it.
And any RNA/DNA strand with the code to replicate/reproduce would only flourish as opposed to a strand that couldn't which would simply die out.
What do you mean? Are you asking me to what extent organisms diverge?
I would say punctuated equilibrium. Organisms don't evolve at a steady rate. Species that enjoy a period of little change usually don't have many selective pressures that cause certain individuals of the species to die and others to thrive and therefore they become more widespread increasing the chance of fossilization. These fossils would of course belong to a relatively stable population of species. More dramatic change occurs over a smaller amount of time creating a smaller window for transitional forms to be fossilized and since Evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, the population will be driven down making the organism more uncommon and further decreasing chances of fossilization. Also, when predators hunt down prey, the integrity of the skeleton isn't guaranteed.
Define this relationship. I'm tempted to say I'm a homosexual too in this case since my best friend is of the same sex. I'll actually rather you stop the meaningless playing with definitions, but if you wish, I'll continue with this.
If can stop a dagger from hitting my friends, does that mean I don't feel angry at the person who threw it? It doesn't. Of course God allows Christians to die because he can give them something better after they do, but the same argument applies. I don't see why he shouldn't be angry.
Can't you see that you've given no basis for your judgement of what is necessary? What you've given me IS circualr reasoning. How do you judge the morality of situations? - unnecessary suffering. And how do you judge the necessity of suffering? - depends on situation. You've essentially managed to avoid giving any basis for your your morality. (don't make me repeat this, else I'll cut and paste next time)
You're skipping something important - why should you care if "suffering has a negative effect on people". The understanding that you should care is based on God's law.
By Biblical basis for slavery you should account for the fact that pretty much all forms of servanthood is given the blanket term slavery in the Bible. The Hebrew language didn't have so many terms to describe "contract worker", "under bond", "maid" or "butler". (in one instance in Proverbs the Bible even calls a man who can't pay up his loan a slave) If the type of slavery the Bible were practiced today, it's nothing like the slavery you think of where masters whip slaves or give them no rights. In fact many of the rights that slaves were given (right to justice) were equal to that of their masters. I'll say a similar kind of slavery in the Bible is practiced in my country, although we call the person a maid instead of a slave. For more information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
It isn't profoundly evil to serve another person. Employees do it all the time. Jesus himself is sometimes called the "servant king". While in the OT Bible masters do 'own' slaves, slaves had the rights not as inanimate objects (that the term property implies) but as human beings.
Nope. There's just another condition. You can have a "Biblical basis" for many things by selectively quoting the Bible as you tried to do with me before. It's hardly surprising.
1. You're implying that Intelligent Design Theorists aren't scientists/all scientists agree on the definition of science, which isn't true.
2. You're also implying the scientists have some scientific method of defining science, superior to noraml human beings which also isn't true. Tell me, who coined the word scientists/science?
When you break the word down, Atheism derives (etymology = derivation of a word) from the Greek word "atheos" which means "godless".[1][2] "-ism" means belief. Therefore Atheism = "godless belief" and not a lack of belief in God.
References:
[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=9&y=16
[2] http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html
Which goes back to my point - you're going back on your original supporting reason for defining Atheism as a lack of belief.
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
Still want to reason in circles?
The article froms from a Atheistic point of view, whereby free will does not exist. Physical determism again I see.
"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight." - http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses
merged: 12-10-2007 ~ 12:59pm
Defined in my post about Worldviews remember?
RNA/DNA are essentially information for the running of cells, just as software is information used to run a computer. In case you didn't know they even come with their progarmming language defined as well. This is an interesting point, for cells wouldn't work without it, and at the same time, it requires the cell to recreate iteself. (chicken and egg problem) Your current reply is also a perfect example of why I don't reply to more than half of your replies. They tend to be shallow, ill-researched, and quite frankly they suck.
New Insights Into The Software Of Life - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050904123314.htm
You're being vague about this. Another perfect example of a half-baked reply. You left any mention of extent of divergence out. Here's a quote to think about:
"The problem (lack of transitional fossils) cannot lie merely in the scantiness of fossilization. True, it is a rare event for an animal, especially a land animal, to leave its skeleton to be dug up millions of years later. It is always possible to say that a transitional form must have existed but has not yet been found. Nevertheless, an enormous amount of information is available. ... Remains of some 250,000 extinct species have been recovered and classified, and they ought to provide a reasonably good picture of the life of the past ... But the fossil record does not tell us what theory promises. We expect to find a great tree, with many forks sending branches in different directions. ... The tree of life as it appears in the rocks is strangely different from this ideal. The beginnings of new limbs are seldom even close to the part of the tree from which they supposedly sprang, and a number of branches usually appear close together without any connection. Charts depicting ancestries through the ages are sometimes fudged by drawing connections where they are assumed; the more honest ones have dotted lines. By corollary, there is little indication of actual change. Stability or stasis is normal. Gradual change appears mostly in dimensions, as increases of size or enlargements of parts (Eldredge 1985, 23, 75). ... It is as though life goes behind the bushes and emerges in new clothes." - ("Beyond Natural Selection", Wesson[1], 1991, pp.39-40, emphasis mine).
References:
[1]: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DD1F39F930A35754C0A967958260
Your state of mind would be anguish of course. But that was accidental and that example has nothing to do with morality.
As for masochism, I have no problem with masochists as long as they're not causing anyone else any pain/suffering.
IMO, that was a very good reason to uphold the golden rule.
And could you please define "Atheistic worldview"?
If someone does something to me, I will retaliate appropriately and seek an alliance with anyone who sought to protect themselves from the harshness of the world just like me. It's the rise of civilization Persocom. It's common sense.
What would you say is the best way to avoid anarchy and suffering?
That depends on who you ask. This jury member is convinced.
Don't compare DNA to software Persocom. And RNA/DNA are really just long molecules. Molecules are ubiquitous if you didn't know and they support common descent as do fossils and anatomical/genetic similarities between our ape 'cousins' and us. Common descent is a likely consequence of Evolution but it does not support nor refute Intelligent Design/Creationism. As a matter of fact, Natural Selection probably also played a role in the evolution of RNA/DNA from more simple molecules in an early Earth.
Yes it does. Organisms that are biologically separated at one point will diverge as their environments begin to change independently but they will still retain certain genetic similarities that don't affect fitness in that environment.
No, the reason you call it homosexual is between it's a love between two people of the same sex. A heterosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be like a boy who has a girlfriend and a homosexual relationship that is non-sexual would be a boy who has a boyfriend. There isn't necessarily any sex involved, but it's still homosexual because it's two people of the same sex who are in the relationship instead of the opposite sex.
I don't think I can make it much clearer. Those people in the anime you listed were angry because someone they cared for was injured, killed, etc. and they couldn't stop it. God can stop suffering if God wishes and when people die, they're still "alive" from God's POV. While those anime characters might have an excuse to be angry, God doesn't because it is well within his power to prevent any suffering he wants and being dead does not prevent God from seeing you like it would a loved one.
I don't see how what I'm saying is circular, you might be misinterpreting what I'm saying, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying what's necessary depends on the situation. If it's necessary to have children, then it's not immoral to have children even if it causes some suffering for the mother. If it's necessary to kill a guy to prevent him from blowing up a hospital, then it's not immoral to shoot him. There's nothing circular about judging each individual situation.
No it's not an appeal to the law of God, it's understanding that people suffer and that suffering has a negative effect on people, and therefore should be avoided and eventually eliminated.
If by a "Biblical basis" you mean, "Jesus said to be nice to people," that's not enough if you take into account that the Bible never once condemns slavery, but instead merely regulates it (to my knowledge, that is).
Biblical contradiction?
No because science is defined by scientists, and, unlike Christianity, Wicca, atheism, etc. you can't be a scientist by saying you accept the principals of science like the scientific method. Of course, you could always make a religion like Sciencity and have the followers call themselves Scientists, but that would just be confusing because words are meant to describe concepts. All I'm saying is atheism seems to make most sense describing a particular concept because of what it means when you break the word down and because atheists describe atheism as a lack of a belief in any gods. Your free to define it however you want, but it will just be confusing if you don't use the "right" definition because when you talk to an "atheist" you'll actually be talking to an "agnostic."
I'm not saying they self-identify with it. The reason I think Buddhists, babies, the mentally disabled, etc. should be considered atheists is because of my other reason--what the word means when you break it down. That and that just because Christians, for example, don't identify with theism doesn't mean they're not theists. You can be something without identifying with it.
From the APA: "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
God could easily prevent the environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
I already said that:
1. It's an abuse of God's creation.
2. Sex does not equal love.
For married comples, point 1 does not apply. I also believe that while many married couples not intend on impregnating the female, (as a priority) they will still be happy if it does happen. (pregnancy is an uncertain thing after all, you can't just decide when and where it happens unless you want to use in-vitro) If they aren't willing to accept the child, then they should not be having sex.
A non-lustful same sex relationship is fine. (includes but not limited to sex) Actually I don't see any reason to call a non-lust relationship between people of the same sex as homosexual. The only reason you call someone homosexual is not because of the love he has for his (same sex) friend, but because of the lust.
I don't understand what you mean, please explain your logic in clearer terms. I don't see how God should not be angry. (you can also wait till tomorrow when I'm awake and can think about what you mean more clearly)
First you judge the morality of situations based on necessary suffering, then you judge whether suffering is necessary based on the situation. It's circular reasoning, and you just pretty much made your own definition of morality meaningless.
No matter who you're talking about, they know what love is. An appeal to compassion is an appeal to the law of God, and the fact that they appeal to it implies that the other side knows what it is. I think you also failed to mention that the abolitionists also had a Bibilcal basis (you replaced it with "reason and appeals to human compassion" which is not mentioned anywhere in your linked article) for their opposition of slavery. Unless you tell me that the South thought it was a loving thing to do to enslave themselves and own children, it doesn't demonstrate that the moral law was in anyway different. Having a Biblical basis doesn't mean you applied the Bible correctly, for even Satan had a "Bibical basis[1]" when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Christians played the biggest (or one of the biggest) roles in the worldwide abolition of slavery. You should note also that slavery wasn't a Christian thing to begin with. It had been around long before, and when Christians began to oppose it, they obviously faced oppostion from some fellow Christians who wanted to keep slavery as it was.
References:
[1] Luke 4:9-12 - "And he brought Him to Jerusalem and sat Him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from here. For it is written, "He shall give His angels charge over You, to keep You; and in their hands they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a stone." And Jesus answering said to him, It has been said, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God.""
More information:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
So you're saying that Intelligent Design is science. I won't go into the flaws in your analogy but I hope you'll understand with just this.
So you're saying that Buddhists, babies, and the mentally disabled self identify as Atheists. And from the numbers of Buddhists, assuming 50% of them fit your definition and babies do as well, I have doubts that the number of self-identifying Atheists will even reach 30% of the total number of people you identify as Atheists.
Under what circumstance would one be forced to be homosexual would you care to elaborate? I believe the verdict on whether homosexuality is inheritable is still out, so I wouldn't use that in an argument.
Well, I can't say I disagree with you because I don't think people should have sex except for procreation too. However, the difference is I don't think it's immoral, I just think it's pointless. If you do something pointless, you're not necessarily doing something that is immoral. I recall reading somewhere that it sex helps to "bond" people (for lack of a better word) as well. I don't know if that's true nor do I remember where I read it, but that's a possible reason for homosexuals to have sex. Do you think married couples should be able to have sex if the male does not intend on impregnating the female? And do you think it's okay for homosexuals to be in a non-sexual relationship that is more than just being friends?
No, you're not wrong. God, however, isn't a person, has the power to prevent suffering if he wills it, and I wouldn't think someone dying would matter all that much to him if they go to Heaven. I'm just saying the anger of those individuals was justified (not necessarily how they expressed that anger), while God's anger isn't because God has no excuse.
Homosexuality != (does not equal) Sex between two people of the same sex. See first reply too. :P
That isn't a flaw in my definition. What is necessary depends on the situation. If our goal is to continue to exist, it is necessary to procreate. Since that seems to be one of our goals, procreation is necessary. The necessity of procreation appears to outweigh the suffering it causes individuals and eliminating that suffering should be one of humanity's goals.
In regards to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
The main point to take away from that page is that when people in the northern United States (the abolitionists) were fighting against the southern slaver-owners, the slave-owners had a Biblical-basis for their ideas because the Bible condoned slavery. The abolitionists had to fight using reason and appeals to human compassion to overcome the many slave-owners in the Bible Belt of the United States. Different cultures having different ideas about morality and those people in the South were certain owning slaves was moral as were the Japanese samurai who thought it was honorable and moral to kill yourself after being defeated. As these go against compassion and reason and only worsened the condition of humans, they were eventually removed from society as humanity progressed.
Dictionaries are based on common usage, and most commonly, when people refer to atheism, they're talking about the belief that no gods exist. I don't think atheism should be defined by people who don't look at what those who consider themselves atheists believe (or don't believe) and base the definition on that. If everyone, except for those who consider themselves to be Wiccans, defined Wicca as the belief that Jesus lives in Antarctica, that would not be a good definition of Wicca, IMHO.
I'm not going back to it, it still is one reason I support defining atheism that way, but I have more than one reason.
Many people don't have the choice of being heterosexual in that, because of various circumstances (some they were born with, some not) they feel compelled to be homosexual. That's hardly a choice. In this circumstance, it would be much better if God made only one sex of human, for example. That would have also saved us a lot of trouble with women being oppressed, harassed, etc. (and sometimes just the opposite even). Giving humans a bit more intelligence and altruism would have been nice too, just enough so that we would all understand why we should be nice to each other and didn't have the urge to kill or hurt each other would be good. We could still choose not to, but we would have no desire to.
I don't mind, I wasn't offended.
You're just redefining your(flawed) definition on an ad hoc basis. As long as pain causes the person joy it must be moral I see. Masochism must be moral in your opinion I guess. Trying to sound wise with your "Life isn't so simple"? You fool. You can't even recognise that your definition of morailty is too simple for life. It is also untrue that physical pain does not cause mental stress. It does. Tell me what your state of mind would be if you accidentally rammed a hammer on your finger. (calm?)
Imo you should save yourself time instead of offering more baseless (materialistically speaking) reasons for upholding the golden rule. It is merely an opinion on your part as you are unable to derive such a law from an Atheistic worldview. (imo it's impossible, but good luck trying) I know you for your endless supply of excuses, (and half baked refutations) more than half of which I never bothered replying.
Nevertheless, I ike the way you think, (pretty good for social pragmatism I must say) but unfortunately for Atheists it's just one of many opinions, for obviously not everyone does the same to you even if you apply the golden rule to them, and not everyone believes that the golden rule is the best way to avoid anarchy and suffering.
I've seen arguments based on DNA and fossil evidence, and they do not in any way prove evolution. Just because all programs are witten in a common programming language for example C++ (analogy to DNA) doesn't mean that they evolved from one another. In fact this should be expected if there was a common designer. Just because windows 98 looks like windows 95 doesn't prove that they evolved from each other either. (although imcomplete forms can be taken as evidence for evolution) As it is, you've shown me absolutely no evidence that proves evolution and yet you continue to believe in it with the reason "because most biologists believe in it".
merged: 12-09-2007 ~ 10:45pm
Nothing. Until they lust for each other that is. Obviously sons don't rape their mothers even though they love them. Sex between homosexuals serves absolutely no purpose except to serve lust, which is a form of evil. And what's wrong with lust? I'll tell you a story about how eskimos kill wolves:
1. Take a sharp knife
2. Cover it with blood and freeze.
3. Repeat until knife is completely coated with blood.
4. Stick blood covered knife in the ground blade up.
5. Wolf dies of blood loss due to wounds inflicted by continuing to lick the bloody knife.
The wolf is this case died of lust for blood. Lust results in destruction, and is opposed to love.
I figured that any normal person would feel angry when some thy love is harmed or killed, but perhaps I'm wrong. If you still want to debate me on this I'll give a more detailed reply.
I wouldn't call homosexuality love at all. See first reply.
I was waiting for your rely since you put a better hedged definition of morality than programZERO. However your definition is likewise flawed, because you do not define what basis you judge whether pain is necessary.
Normal is a hedging term as I don't know about the state of mind of people who are mentally unsound in some way, and it might not be provable that they know what love is. Just because everyone knows the moral law doesn't mean that they follow it. You can come up with 101 other examples of people acting against love (slavery, human sacrifice etc...) but it doesn't in any way mean that God thinks it is moral.
They quoted many reputable dictionaries in their article if you read all of it. And while I'm not familiar with all dictionaries, they did say that no reputable dictionary defines atheism as a "lack of belief". According to dictionary.com:
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
You're going back on your original supporting reason for defining Atheism as a lack of belief:
"to my knowledge, most people who consider themselves atheists define atheism as such." - alexjohnc3
It seems that you did not bother refuting your own argument when you used it. Granted, I recognise that my definition of Atheism is narrower, but I think it's the most appropriate definition to describe the kind of Atheism you and most here advocate.
What if he wanted people to have a choice? God of course could have forced you to do anything. But obedience without choice is one of compulsion, not love. It's nonsensical to say "my computer loves me because it serves me" because your computer had no choice in the matter. However if your dog decides to stay with you instead of your next door neighbour, you can say: "my dog loves me more than my next door neighbour".
Sorry for sounding so critical, I found the reason you gave too absurd and felt you weren't thinking rationally.
So what's wrong with homosexuals loving each other if God's standard is love?
Don't worry, I try to assume good faith so you don't need to bother referencing everything.
No, those actions were taken out of anger, not out of love for a friend. The anger was a result of the fact that someone they cared for died and their inability to prevent that death. God, on the other hand, would have no such excuse.
Homosexuality violates God's standard that we should love God because God didn't design humans to be homosexual just as Einstein didn't write pages of his books to be used as toilet paper? That makes no sense because homosexuals aren't pages in a book, they're human beings. One male loving another male instead of a female human isn't at all like using a computer as a hammer either. I'm not sure if I should bother talking about this anymore because I don't want to deal with someone who's sexist as well.
Note that ProgramZero said morality was relative, not absolute. I personally detest hedonism, for example. This is because I think hedonism will lead to a sad society based entirely around pleasure that won't have any concern for learning or progress.
I would say that pregnancy would be "immoral" if it wasn't necessary in that people shouldn't hurt themselves.
I noticed you used the word "normal" before "person." There are many people who don't think the "moral law" is necessary or have different ideas of morality. In Japan, for instance, samurai often committed Seppuku. Does your god consider Seppuku immoral even though Japanese people had the "moral law" inside of them?
I know enough to know that trying to compare numbers like that person did makes no sense. :P
I could be wrong of course. This is based off of my experience and the only example I recall of someone not defining atheism that way was the owner of EvilBible.com, but I don't like that site very much anyway. I just think that because a- means "non" or "without" and theism means belief in any gods, atheism should mean non-belief or without belief in any gods.
I think kaireon is trying to say that if Christianity is shown to be false, then will you continue to be a Christian? Not necessarily through new scientific discoveries.
I don't think most Christians self-identify with theism either, but they're still theists. The fact that I think most self-identified atheists don't define atheism as the denial of gods existence isn't my main reason. I just think it's semantic and the most logical definition for the word.
I'm not "blaming God" for anything. I'm just saying that if God wanted everyone to be heterosexual, God could have prevented people from becoming homosexual with ease.
Rationalize my beliefs? I don't believe any of those things are God's fault nor do I blame God for them. It's merely under the condition that God exists and is thus hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. If God existed, it shouldn't have been very hard to design humans so that they couldn't drown or choke on the very thing that nourishes them.
FIX'D
Life isn't so simple Persocom01. A pregnancy may cause pain but it doesn't really cause the woman mental stress... As far as I know. Most, if not, all women consider child birth a joyful experience... After delivery of course.
One should uphold the golden rule in hopes that others may do the same and thus avoid anarchy and suffering.
Understandable but that belief was based on THAT time's knowledge when people reasoned that the sun revolved around the Earth simply because they witnessed the sun rise in one horizon and set in another. The belief that the Earth might've been the one in movement was never seriously considered because they themselves did not see themselves in movement. Thankfully, Galileo was there to lead us in the right direction. Today, we have telescopes and a better understanding of physics and such. Today, we have DNA testing, fossils, and undeniable observations of mechanisms in nature that promote survival of the fittest.
This shows that there are instances where your definition does not hold true, and proves my point that it is flawed.
And why should we follow the golden rule? You have given absolutely no logical explanation from the Atheistic world view why you should in any way uphold the golden rule. Then again, it's not surprising that you're appealing to an invisible standard. It's been my stand that everyone knows this standard, which is the reason why consensus tends to give a fairly accurate representation of this standard.
This is known as the bandwagon fallacy. At one point in history the majority of scientists though that the sun revolved around the earth. Their beliefs didn't in any way change the truth of the matter, nor are the beliefs of the majority necessarily the truth.
Well, pregnancy is a special case since a woman who goes through pregnancy is a willing participant... Unless they were raped or something.
Come now Persocom01, you know what I mean. A job can be a pain but you get a paycheck for it at the end of the day. LOL!
One should care for the welfare of society because everyone is a part of society. It's the golden rule.
Yes, morality is opinion, hence it is not universal. And laws are made based on popular opinion Persocom01. It's the legislative branch of government that passes laws voted on by people elected by the governed.
Yes, I do. There may be differing opinions upon some things in the mainstream scientific community but I do believe that the majority of biologists would agree that evolution did in fact occur. It's the how, not the what, that is contested.
The Moral Law
Table of Contents:
1. The Law of God.
2. Explaining some objections
3. Homosexuality
4. Personal reply to alexjohnc3
1. God's standard is Love. That is all. Of course, not just any love, as love must be directed at something or someone. If one loved money above all else one would do anything for it, be it backstabbing, betrayal etc etc. God's standard is more properly defined as the following[1]:
a. Love God.
b. Love your neighbour as yourself.
2a. Some Atheistic literature I've read complains's that God's morality changes. (the actual document exists on infidels.org, but I don't want to waste my time finding it just to add to my reference list - I think my references aren't always appreciated anyway, and I don't think it's necessary for me to provide the reference to this to be believable) After all, at one point God said "You shall not kill[2]" yet at other points of time God orders Israel to annihilate a group of people. However it's not true that God's standard has in any way changed. It was the same before and after. Occurances where God seems to command something that goes against the law are instances of judgement as a result of a breaking of the law by pepole. You might also ask how this demonstrates love in any way, but it does, and indeed makes a great deal of sense. A great deal of fighting is actually caused by Love in animation. In Utawarerumono the main character wipes out the remnant of the human race (and causing human extinction) after human scientists dissected his wife for experimental purposes. Naruto almost went beserk when he thought Sasuke was killed. Subaru in Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS similarly went beserk after her sister was beaten and taken by enemies:
Subaru from Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS ep 17
"And the third angel poured out his vial on the rivers and fountains of waters, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Righteous is the Lord, who is, and was, and who will be, because You have judged these things, since they have poured out the blood of the saints and prophets; and You gave them blood to drink, for they were deserving." - Revelation 16:4-6
2b. In all these cases, action was taken not out of hatred of enemies, but out of love for a friend, family etc... This is not to say that all of the actions taken by the fomer characters were right, (although some are) as we sometimes fail to judge the appropriate amount of judgement to met out and exceed what would otherwise have been the right amount. Moreover in most (or all) situations the offer of grace should preceed judgement, as God's model in the revelations seems to suggest. (explaining would lengthen the post so I'll leave this out. Ask me on guestbook if you wish to know) For Christians remember that between God's judgement and human judgement, God's judgement is prefered, so unless actions taken will in some way prevent future harm from being done it is preferable that judgement always be left to God, even if it is justified.
3. That being said homosexuality violates God's standard a. Love God. If I wrote a beautiful piece of music on a piece of paper, and you use it to pick up dog poop, obviously you are violating the law of love. Sure, using Einstein's books as toilet paper in the same way doesn't harm anyone directly yet violates the law of love. (other examples: using a a friend gave you as computer as a hammer, or a piece of art as a shoerack) Homosexuality is a blatant abuse of God's creation. (humans are the pinacle of his creation too) You're wrong that God's standard is "to get people to reproduce". It is love. All other laws that people come up with that are good are derived from love. Example of derived law:
Even an atheist appeals to the law of God in this case. However since his version is derived, and not fundamental, there are flaws. For example since pregnancy causes pain, pregnancy is immoral. (in the case when the society does not require new infants) Moreover the problem with Atheistic attempts at morals is that they are not universal. Why should we care about the welfare of society at all? Clarence Darrow, a famous materialist, based his morals on pleasure[3]. Indeed Atheistic morals aren't laws at all, but rather conventions or mere opinions. (for more on the difference between Christian and Atheist stands on morality ask me on guestbook)
4. I've argued with you (alexjohnc3) and a few others as well that everyone knows the moral law. And while I can't prove this, I stand by this view, for I believe that every normal person in the world, regardless of when they were born, or what society they are born in, has an idea what true love is, even if they are sometimes slightly mistaken in some cases. Love is known by many names. Kindness, graciousness, benevolence, righteousness, gentleness etc etc:
"Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited, And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful, Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win. She bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her hope, And never will she fall. Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies, they will be done away with. If there are tongues, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will be done away with." - 1 Corinthians 13:4
References:
[1] Luke 10:27 - "And answering, he said, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
[2] Deuteronomy 5:17 - "You shall not kill."
[3] Meet the Materialists, part 5: Clarence Darrow - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/meet_the_materialists_pt_6_cla.html
Other comments:
There are some holes in my article which I did not explain in detail, so for clarification feel free to post on my guestbook.
I'll also like to hear ProgramZERO's view on whether Zoophillia or Bestiality (sex between people and animals) is right or wrong.
Edit history:
I believe I'm mistaken about one small but important point in section 2, and thus have made changes to reflect this.
--------------------------------------------
I'm glad you recognise that, for I seriously felt like hitting my head against the wall when he tried to rebutt me with that.
Well since you present no evidence of this, I don't know if I should believe you or not. That being said, these are perfect examples of what Atheists like to say, which is why I use Scientific Materialism as my definition:
This quote is found on the Christian Fellowship guestbook pg 13: http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/guestbook/?name=christian-fellowship&page=13 or max page -11.
Found here http://devildude.minitokyo.net/posts/groups/?type=groups&name=devildude&page=15 Of course, Devildude does not consider himself as religious, because he does not believe in the "supernatural being".
Nothing wrong with this, besides that often ProgramZERO fails to recognise that Darwin Science is alot about interpretation, (and a great deal of it has more than 1 'alternative' answer) but still, he places his wholehearted faith in it.
While it does not perfectly justify my definition of Atheism, I do not believe that most Atheists will suddenly be declassified as Atheists just for that reason. Moreover, by your definition, most people whom you classify as Atheists do not self identify as Atheists imo. (Buddhists I bet, and there are many many of them)
I guess you're saying that God should have idiot-proofed sex. Like making a penis incapable of being stuck into anything except a woman perhaps. Although I've never had a problem with homosexuality in my experience, while you're blaming God for it I'll give you a list of other things to blame God for:
1. Drowning.
2. Falling down stairs.
3. Choking on food.
4. People killing each other. (should sound familiar)
5. Failing exams.
6. Anorexia.
7. Walking into lamp posts.
8. Cruelty to animals.
9. Tripping and falling.
10. Getting drunk.
It's always God's fault as usual, and I'm sure you can find plenty of other ways to rationalize your beliefs. He should have designed a better way of eating, sleeping, breathing, walking etc etc...
LOL! I wish I was there to listen to people speak of the FSM as if he were a real entity (which he is). Does this make Italian restaurants churches of Pastafarians?...
But seriously, I find it funny that board members would choose what should be taught in Biology class. That should be left up to the scientific community and, more importantly, what evidence demonstrates to be true.
Welcome Fiya to the group. ^^
...food for thought... a random topic starter
That fountain of youth sounds like a Pandora's Box to me... Although most people who somehow achieve eternal youth would disagree.
Nope, haven't herad of it at all. Oh joy, it's probably going to be bad if they get that fountain of youth thing going on. If so, I'm bringing up my kids in the world of assassins and killers. Overpopulation doesn't sound too good to me.
I'm sure you've heard but if you haven't...
For morality, one needs to set a "standard" of some sort. If I believe causing others to suffer unnecessarily is immoral, then stabbing people is something that would be unacceptable to me. If God exists, the same would be true for him as God would be the one dictating what is and is not moral based on God's "standard". While our standards are based on the environment we've been raised in and some biological aspects (which is why many people have differing views on morality, such as some religious terrorists who think it's okay to blow stuff up if they think their God wants them to), God's standards could be something like "homosexuality is immoral because my goal is to get people to reproduce." So homosexuality would be immoral in that God didn't want us to be homosexual as it doesn't have any "benefits," like producing children, which would be God's purpose for sexuality. (I just read the part of your post that says this. Looks like I was right. :P )
This isn't a rebuttal to 2+2=4. It's implied that you're using base 10 when you say, "2+2=4." If you're using a different base, it's like talking about different numbers as the numbers have different values. For example, 11 in base 2 has a value of 3 when converted to base 10. The Wikipedia entry provides a good summary: