Underlying Philosophy

That dynamo theory is an explanation of the earth's geomagnetic field, not of gravity. Electrical and magnetic fields have nothing to do with gravitational fields. Gravity is not static cling!Next thing we know, you will join ICANT in claiming that lightning is caused by anti-matter! Or some other even more bizaare foolishness!Saint Augustine, from De Genese ad litteram:

quote:

---

It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

​

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.

---

Before you do even more damage to your cause, don't you think that you should at long last pull your head out of your benighted theological cockpit and perform that long-overdue reality check?But if you would rather wish to continue furthering the spread of atheism, then do please stay your course.

Oh? Did Zeus create everything? Did Osiris? Did Thor? No they didn't, yet they're still gods. So no, if there was a god he must not have made santa clause. My original point stands, how do you know god is not a figment of the imagination? Doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, does it? We're talking about evidence for claims here, not about what sides people chose in wars. The neutral position to a claim is being always ready to change your stance on it, depending on what the evidence shows. Oh dear, it was as I feared, you have no idea what causes gravity, do you? It's not electromagnetism, it's the warping of spacetime by mass. that's what causes gravity. If you don't even know that, makes me wonder what else you're completely wrong about. No actually, for the first years in my life, I had no oppinion on murder, I didn't even know what murder was. Because what is bad for society is bad for the species. And I want our species to have the best possible chance of making it. No. it's because it's bad for our species. That which keeps society stable is good, that which doesn't is bad. And he was wrong, look what it did to society, it caused tremendous instability and many people died as a consequence. No they shouldn't because causing them to go extinct is artifcial selection, not natural selection. So, if Hitler had wanted to let evolution take it's course on the jews, he should've done absolutely nothing, and if they really were inferior, they would've died out anyway. But guess what, they're not inferior, that's why they didn't die out, and that's why Hitler had to take the measures he did, precisely because it doesn't fit a Darwinian perspective. As I have just explained, it wasn't. At least one of his premises was wrong (Jews being inferior). It's because it undermines the stability of society. Really? Would you mind pointing me to a scoiety that has thrived on pain and suffering? Pain and suffering lead to an unstable society, and this will inevitably at one time collapse. Again you seem to think that you know what my worldvies says. Yet you are completely wong about what it syas. My worldview can tell you what is good and bad for society. Stability is good, instability is bad. Are you blind and deaf? It's called the second world war mate, it's not really been that healthy for society, now has it? Because it leads to an unstable society. They are human constructs that evolved with us as we gained more brainpower. If they are unbiased, yes. That's because theists are biased, they assume their bible is true, when they have no reason to do so, and shoehorn everything into that view. Whereas I look at the evidence, and build from there. No I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't even recognise it. But say I did, then I would look in which strata it was found, perhaps do some radiometric dating on it, and then see what those results yield, look if I can determine if it belongs to an already discovered animal of which we know the age it lived in. Only then would I proclaim this to be any sort of age. See, shoehorning it into your bible. You don;t do any tests at all, you just proclaim it as if that makes it true. I would think "How did that come about" and then research the subject. Turns out the evolutionary explanation is backed by evidence, while your assertion is, again, shoehorning something into your bible without any research whatsoever. Three strikes, you're out.
No I wouldn't I would first look at the location, see if I can determine what kind of rocks these are, do some radiometric dating, and only then would I proclaim anything about the layers. Maybe something like "These were created by a mudflow last year, the one we caught on tape". While you, again, without any research or interest in the facts whatsoever just shoehorn it into your bible like that makes it true. Because you are biased and want to fit everything into your bible and I am not and look at the actual evidence. I explained to you I don't do that. If there were evidence of god making that rock and placing it there, I would say, " hey look! God placed a rock layer here". Since there is absolutely no evidence of god getting involved in creating that rock layer, I leave him out of my explanation, just like I leave out Gavad, great mud god of layers. Of course not, since atheism only means that you do not believe in gods, everything else has absolutely nothing to do with it. Only if they're biased, or a t least one of them is. The evidence supports my conclusions. I wouldn't know how hey could be more right. I hope my explanation has made you see that I indeed do start from a neutral standpoint, though I am beginning to doubt that. I've read the bible thank you very much. It didn't make much sense, but nevermind that. I am going by your words here. In your first reply you say we're not bound to follow the punishments of the law, I ask you if you would help punish a Jew, as you said they are under the punishments of the law and the law commands they should be punished. Then you say you wouldn't. I ask you why you wouldn't punish a Jew, who should be punished by the law, and the law commands you to punish him. Either you follow the commands of the law or you don't when you start nitpicking which ones you do like and which you don't the entire law becomes useless. Jesus did not come to change the law or to do away with it, he said so himself. Depends on the situation. If they refuse to murder someone, I'd call that a pretty damn good time to be rebellious. It causes more pain and suffering if they do follow their parents order. And quite frankly, any parent who orders something like that from a child should not be a parent. Irrelevant, this is about obeying your parents when they order you to do something, like the law commands, you should not be rebellious to your father and mother, or you will be stoned. So, would you obey your parents no matter what they ask of you? So far, yes. Uhm...the evidence itself? If I say "this car is green" and it is, in fact, green, wouldn't you say the evidence that the car is green supports my claim that the car is green? No not really. a claim is either true or false, this is simple logic. Now we use the evidence to determine if the claim is either true or false. The claim is "the car is green", so we proceed to,look at the car. We see that the car is, in fact, green. Conclusion, the claim "the car is green" is a correct claim. Bob's a bit of a thicko, isn't he? It's not nice to use dumb people to demonstrate your point. The neurtal standpoint is that you don't know whether right and wrong exist until you look at the evidence. Now, Like I said, simple logic dictates that something is either right or wrong. There we're done, we've used logic to prove that right and wrong exist. No because the premise that they are hurting society is wrong, Godwin. If it's bad for society it's bad for the species. Again you'vew got it completely wrong. My view does need them to be judged, they are hurting society and therefore the species. Yes. One man is not a society. You said it needed "a god", not "a supernatural entity". I challenged this claim, and it seems we are now in agreement that "a god" is not needed for an afterlife, thank you.

It turned out that this thread is not as advertised (wanting to know about what atheists think or believe), but rather about trying to dictate to atheists (and even to many theists) what they think and believe. It has been about sac trying to pidgeon-hole us all into his presuppostional theology; more explicitly stated in his Message 27: Now, sac is taking that as being axiomatic, which is to say that its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. However, what is actually self-evident is that sac's starting point is not in the least bit axiomatic. Of course, just as with any supernaturalistic claim, it cannot be proven or disproven on its own. Furthermore, sac repeatedly uses his axiom (AKA "postulate") that God exists as the basis for "proving" that God exists. It's a classic circular argument.So that got me thinking about how we are supposed to deal with axioms and postulates. And that Wikipedia article says that "Their validity had to be established by means of real-world experience." Since real-world experience of "God" and other ghosties is not possible, I would propose another approach, an approach taken in a number of mathematical proofs; it's been a few decades, but I seem to remember it being called "proof by contradiction". Basically, you start by assuming the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove and apply that assumption to the proof. When the conclusion proves to be contrary-to-fact, you then know that the assumption was false and hence, its opposite (which is what you were wanting to prove) must be true.In this thread, we have repeatedly seen sac use his "starting point" to arrive at absurd and contrary-to-fact conclusions. Assuming that his logic was performed correctly, that would mean that his "starting point" is false. One of the problems with presenting an answer is that all atheists are individuals and have arrived by their own individual paths. OK, fundies are/were also individuals, but then they were intensively indoctrinated into their central dogma and continue to be indoctrinated by their churches. OTOH, there is no central dogma or doctrine for atheists, nor do they undergo any indoctrination. When you're dealing with atheists, you're dealing with individuals; there is no one "underlying philosophy". But then you've been told that repeatedly; have you stopped to listen yet?So I'll take one segment of the atheist community. I think it's safe to assume that many atheists started out as believing Christians. So that means that their "starting point" was believing that God exists, etc. Just like you! The difference is that they started to realize that it didn't work, that there were too many problems with that starting point, problems that just would not go away and that would point to even more problems. Eventually, they reached a point where they came to realize that their starting point was not valid, that they could no longer believe in God. They used to believe in God, but they had grown out of it.So then, many atheists had the exact same starting point as yourself, but they grew out of it. And, no, that starting point is not valid, as your innumerable absurd conclusions also indicate.And BTW, atheists' approach to the world is not based on "there is no God!". Rather, it's based on just dealing with the real world, as it is, without throwing in any extra and unnecessary crap. You're the one who has to throw in extra unnecessary crap as you have to filter everything through your religious beliefs. Must be very tiring for you, as it was for Gary. That friend of mine from church I told you about. He's much happier and more spiritually fulfilled as "an atheist and thorough humanist" than he ever could be as a fundamentalist Christian.Also, this approach of dealing with the world as it is that atheists use. The theists using it far outnumber the atheists. And many, if not most, of those theists are Christians.

We've had some threads dealing with morality. You should give them a read. Some of the titles are:
Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation
Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
What morality can be logically derived from Evolution?
Evolutionary Explanation for Morality
Atheist morality
Are Fundamentalists Inherently ImmoralThat might give you some much-needed background in the subject matter. Then you would no longer be able to plead ignorance for such absurd postings as this: Or Do you really have absolutely no clue about society? Do we need to spell it all out for you? No, wait, we already have and yet you still have no clue. You might want to read the replies you get and think about them.And just what brain cramp did you have to produce the single person who's his own society? That could only apply to somebody like Alexander Selkirk, who was marooned alone on an island. Or possibly metaphorically refer to a sociopath, somebody whose mental illness renders him incapable of functioning within society. In either type of case, when a murderer comes in contact with a human society and poses a danger to that society, then that society must deal with that danger. Just what part of that are you so incapable of understanding?Also: What Flood? Where is the evidence for that Flood? And what about all the evidence that contraindicates that Flood?This is another example of absurd statements that your "starting point" in Message 1 leads you to make. You claim some event for which there is no evidence. "Creation science" does the same and has created a sizable body of false claims and deceptions to back it up. And "creation science" leaders continue to make those false claims even after their falsehoods have been demonstrated to them thousands of times.Which brings up an interesting moral question: what role do lies and deception have in Christian doctrine? Are they condoned or condemned?

I have tried to take you seriously, but then you wrote this: Well, what am I to say? You are so ignorant and wrong that you can't tell the difference between the Earth's magnetic field and its gravitation field.And you are so arrogant and so puffed up with pride that you presumed to lecture us on the subject.Now, you must be aware of the fact that you have never studied physics. You must surely know that you don't know the first darn thing about the subject on which you are pretending to lecture us.You must know that you don't know the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism.And yet you presume to lecture us on these subjects.I shall resume taking you seriously when you admit that you were bullshitting about a subject on which you were inadequate to make any comment whatsoever.

I didn't read all the comments about my stupid mistake, so I'll just make a general reply to say that I am sorry about that mistake, which was utterly inexcusable. If you want to hold it against me, I guess you can, cause I myself wouldn't be one to listen to people who say that dynamos cause gravity (ugh). So with all that said, I will reply to the other parts of your comments. Once again, I'm sorry about that confusion, and I guess it's left up to you now whether you take me seriously or not.But to clarify the mistake, I should say that gravity is caused by the warping of the fabric of space-time by a mass. The point being that there isn't really a "force of gravity" as much as gravity is just the drawing in of objects because of the fabric of space-time being bent, changing the person's view of left and right. But this is just all being nit-picky, so it doesn't really matter whether you say "gravity" or "the warping of space-time". Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Huntard,Before I respond to your message, I need to point us back in a more fundamental direction. We have an awful lot of discussions going on in one message, so I'll answer a few of your questions, and then raise just a few of my own at the very end that will be very fundamental questions. If you could understand my thinking, you wouldn't keep giving the same answers for my questions. I ask how you decide what is bad for society, and you say "whatever is bad for the species". The focus in this question is on the word "bad", not on your definition of "society". How do you decide what is bad and detrimental to your "society"? If you have some standard by which you can determine good and bad, where did this standard come from?You said later that "whatever keeps society stable is good". This statement raises yet another question; what defines what it is that keeps society stable? Is it that which is good for society?...Besides, I would wager that you hold some views of what is right and wrong that I would disagree with. The most obvious being that you believe there is no god, while I believe God exists.So obviously, different people can come to different conclusions about what is good and bad for society (just try and live with some cannibals for a while). You have no explanation for differing views among people of good and bad, while I have a very good explanation for it. And if in your worldview you expect for different people to come to different conclusions, then this creates a myriad of definitions of good and bad worldwide. This destroys the concept of good and bad, because if one person thinks it's good to eat people, and another person thinks it's bad to eat people, then eating people is neither good nor bad. Or would you say that your view of cannibalism is correct, and a cannibal's view is wrong? What is the deciding factor in this? Is there anything flawed about the logic of a cannibal? If their ultimate goal is survival, and there is nothing to eat but people, then in their view, the best possible thing they can do for themselves is to devour the closest person to them. Who says that the cannibal has to have your view of a society as a network of people working together for a common good. Perhaps all society is to a cannibal is himself, and to work for the common good of his "society" would involve the cannibalization of those around him.I won't quote every part of your message, so I'll just respond in general to the WWII part of it. You say that WWII was bad for society because it was unstable. One question raised is this (which I asked earlier); what defines what is unstable for society? What if Hitler has a different definition than you? Or is there only one, absolute definition of stability? If so, from where does this definition arise?You have contradicted yourself in an incredible way here with your concept of "whatever is good for society". I will first presume you are a proponent of evolution carried out by natural selection. "Natural" selection? What? Natural selection is the death of inferior species. Is death natural? From this (your) standpoint it is. So why is it bad for Hitler to wipe out the Jews (and yes the Jews were inferior to Hitler, because Hitler was more "powerful" than them, obviously because he killed them[and don't run away with me saying Jews are inferior, because I don't really think that])? Hitler was carrying out natural selection to the letter. In natural selection, one species comes out on top of another because of the use of some trait or ability they have that is superior to the ability of the other species. Suppose this superior trait is the existence of bigger teeth in orangutans (orangutans, by the way, cannibalize each other). Then the orangutans with bigger teeth would be more likely to win fights, and thus destroy the small-toothed species of orangutans. Hitler had an army, the Jews didn't. Hitler used his army to wipe out the Jews who were inferior to him. There is nothing wrong with this picture here.One question that is raised from this: if natural selection involves the death of species, then why does the death of humans bother you so much? Is it because "it's bad for the species?...I hope you see my point. Sometimes (in your worldview), what is "bad" (oh yes, please explain why "bad" is "bad"; and also explain why there is bad at all) for one species, may actually be good for a host of other species. As I have pointed out before, if one thing is good for someone, and bad for someone else, then that thing can be neither good or bad, because if something is really "good", then it is always good in every situation. Good and bad is not subjective (or would you disagree with this?).Now I'll ask some more fundamental questions. I need to do this so that I will be able to better understand what you believe.Here are the three basic metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical questions respectively.What is real?How do we know what is real?How do we live based on what we know is real?These basic questions must be answered for any worldview. Just to prevent confusion, I will give my answers to each of these questions.God is real, and all that God has created is real (note that this is a premise, as will the answers be to all the other questions).Since all that God has created is real, then we can use the filter of "what has God created" to decide what is and isn't real. This requires use of our God-given, cognitive faculties to observe the world he has created, and also to interpret it in terms of His Word.Since God is the creator of all things, then He must also know what is right and wrong. Therefore, we go no further than the Bible to determine how it is we should live.

---

Obviously, your answers will differ quite a bit from mine, but I am curious to see what your answers will be to these questions. I won't make a lengthy response to all of the geology anecdotes, because all of my examples were just that; examples.Don't think that creationists hold beliefs for which there is no scientific proof. A simple difference in our beliefs is that you believe in the validity of radiometric dating, and I don't. But we won't get in to discussing this because it is avoiding the subject at hand. But the point being this: there are creationist scientists out there, and in fact, there is an incredible amount of evidence in support of the creationist model, which I would readily present on another thread.You need to just admit that at some point along the road, you made some presuppositions. Every time I point out a presupposition that you have made, you just say "oh well here's how I proved this". So I then ask about particular presuppositions of that proof, and then you say "oh well here's how I prove that". Don't you see that this must eventually end somewhere? You must have presuppositions, however basic they may be. This is why I asked the three fundamental questions earlier.You always use evidence in support of your claims (once again, don't go saying that I am undermining evidence, this is just an example). Well what evidence do you have that proves that evidence is valid? None, because this would be circular. It is a simple presupposition of yours that evidence is valid. I do not have any particular problem with this presupposition, but I am just trying to get you to admit that you do have this presupposition (along with many other presuppositions).You said later on "I look at the evidence". Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing this, I'm just asking if it is a presupposition of yours that "I can look at the evidence". How do you know that you can look at the evidence? What if all that you see is illusion? How do you know that your knowing is not just illusion? How do you know that your concepts of knowledge are not just illusion? What if all is illusion (and an awful lot of people believe this; Hindus)? You can't use evidence to support the claim that there is a reality, because suppose that evidence is just your own illusion? Once again, I'm trying to point you back to the three fundamental questions I asked earlier. We are not having a scientific discussion about the evidence for a given side, but we are searching out the presuppositions of each side (which I am having a hard time weeding out of of you).Just to hammer this point home, in response to your green car metaphor, suppose the car is just an illusion? Or suppose that your concept of the color green is illusion? Suppose your thoughts about this car are just an illusion to yourself? Suppose you are an illusion of your own mind? Suppose your concept of evidence is illusion? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

dwise1,I have attempted to refrain from adhomenen attacks, so I hope that you will do the same.You seem to be missing the fundamental aspect of my arguments. I accept your definition of society, and in some cases I would accept what you say is bad for society (e.g., if you said "murder is wrong", I would accept that). But this is not the argument. I am asking where your definition of "bad" has come from. First of all, is morality a concrete reality, or a subjective one? If it is concrete, from where did it come from, and who get's to define what is right and wrong? I've asked these question to Huntard, and he said "whatever is bad for the species is bad for society". I don't know if this is what your answer would be, but if it was, the answer is begging the question. What is bad for the species? In natural selection, death is sometimes a good thing, because it destroys the inferior species. Wouldn't it be awful if nothing died, because then the earth would overpopulated, and all of the inferior species would never die out. Natural selection makes death out to be a natural occurrence that can have good consequences. You may agree with this, and you would then go on to say however that if the death is caused by unnatural means, then it is bad. First of all, what defines "natural" death? Before I go any further with this, I will let you answer this question.And perhaps the brain cramp you spoke of earlier was had by the man who was with another man on a desert island. So the man saw that survival was his ultimate goal, so he ate the other man. And there you have it; a cannibal. Yes, this definition of society is flawed (at least from our perspective). But is it flawed in the thinking of the cannibal? He may not use the word "society", but he may think of reality as a struggle for survival, and that absolutely anything must be done that will in anyway help his own survival. That is reality to him, and he only cares about his own life.So there is the thinking of a cannibal, and I have to wonder what your objection might be to this...will it be, "it's bad for society/the species"? I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, or what exactly you mean. If you're referring to the so called "lies" of creation scientists, my response is just that I don't think that they are lying. Whether they are or not is a different discussion for a different thread, which I am definitely not afraid to discuss.Or maybe you meant something else. If so, please explain to me what you meant in a little more detail.

---

As with Huntard, I am going to ask you to answer the three most basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.What is real?How do we know what is real?How should we live based on what we know is real?If you want to see my answers, go to my response to Huntard in message 217.

Parasomnium, Unfortunately, yes it does (in a way). I do not say that you are like the Nazis or Hitler, but I think that that is where Darwinian philosophy leads to (or Marxist philosophy, if you want to be picky). The reason this example is used so much is because, guess what; Hitler was a proponent of Darwinism. In fact, Darwinism had a lot to do with the thinking of Hitler.However, I am not a big fan of using this example, because it can offend Darwinists (understandably). Just realize that I am not equating you - or anybody else on this forum for that matter - with Hitler or Nazis. So maybe I won't use it anymore. I'll probably just keep pointing everyone in a more fundamental direction, since the subject of Nazis isn't exactly fundamental. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

There is, however, a very, very large difference between understanding that evolution is the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life observed on Earth and the generation of new species, and subscribing to social Darwinism.I think you'll find that social Darwinism or any other version of deriving morality from a "survival of the fittest" mentality is not held by nearly any evolutionists, and moreover has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of "underlying philosophy" for understanding evolution as a scientific principle.The underlying philosophy behind the scientific Theory of Evolution is methodological naturalism - the same as with any scientific theory. This branch of philosophy has little to do with morality and ethics.The Theory of Evolution no more suggests how we should behave towards other human beings in a moral or ethical context than does the Theory of Gravity or General Relativity.Social Darwinism is simply the result of racists and bigots using a scientific theory as a rationalization for their already-existing views, nothing more.Marxism, of course, is an economic model, and has nothing to do with social Darwinism. Marx, to my knowledge, never suggested that we should kill off the weakest individuals and let only the strong survive; in fact, that mentality seems to relate far more to capitalism, where without regulation the wealthy and strong inherently prey upon the weak and poor, than Marxist communism, where the poor and weak run the show.

Ok, fair enough, perhpas it will be best to focus a bit more. I didn't say that. I said that which destabilizes society is bad for it, because an unstable society is bad for the species. That which destabilizes society is bad, that which doesn't isn't. From me, my experiences, and those of others. So far, everything points to a stable society being good for the species, and an unstable one being bad. I, wanting our species to prosper, have elected to strive for an as stable as possible society. Yes. I don;t believe there is no god, as I told you in one of my first messages. I don't know whether there is a god or not, but until there is evidence a god exists, I choose not to include him in my decision making. Yes, there can be only one right choice for any given society though. Actually, I do. Different people hold different values, and thus, see different things as preferential. What's your explanation? Yes. Wrong, it is bad. Good and bad are simply subjective things. I say what is good and bad in my life and my society. And luckily, most people agree with me. Those that disagree will utimately be shut out of that society, if their views and actions become to disruptive. Yes. I am. Yes. See how well it goes for the society they are cannibalizing, I don;t think they're to happy about that. Now, if the cannibals stopped eating that other village, perhaps they could trade with them, and get food in that way. Then both villages can thrive beyond what is now possible. But there's no where on earth where the only thing to eat is people, now is there? No one. Different people have different views. Once again, one man is not a society. That which hurts it. Then he's wrong, demonstrably so. The world was a very nice place to live in during those years, wasn't it? Yes. From the consent of all people. You can stop assuming, I am. No, it is the extinction of less fit individuals, evolution makes no value judgement. Death can occur naturally, yes. First of all, that isn't natural but artificial. Second, Jews aren't less fit, and certainly not "less valuable". If you don't subscribe to the argument, then why make it? And what is your obsession with might makes right? No he wasn't. Hitler killing the Jews is artificial selection, not natural selection. Yes, their genes carry traits that are more beneficial to them in their current environment. These genes will then spread, and become more profound in the population at large, until every individual in the population has those traits. If you can't see how this is completely different from what Hitler was doing, you are beyond help. Really? Evidence of that? And so what?Regardless, carry on: Orang-utans don't fight solely with their teeth. If another mutations pops upthat gives an individual stronger arms, they can dominate the one with stronger teeth, making them the victor. Also, why would an Orang-utans kill every opponent in a fight, they rarely do. The Jews weren't inferior to him, I can't belief you just said that. Of course there is, it's completely and utterly wrong. You have some twisted views if you think what Hitler did was right. It doesn't. That depends on how these deaths occur. Natural death doesn't really bother me one bit. Artificial deaths, that disrupt society, now those bother me. Ultimately, yes. No, I'm afraid not. Bad is bad because we chose to call it that. there is bad because we as a society have decided there are somethings we don't like. We chose to call these things "bad". Like? And as I explained to you "good" and "bad" are subjective terms. Oh yes, very much so, as you yourself have shown it to be with your examples in this thread. Way to undermine your own argument. No problem. Reality. Evidence. Uhm...well? Evidence please? So, you know all that god created, and there are things he didn't create that still exist? What a confusing position. Nonsense. Your sense are enough. They've brought us to the moon, you know. They made the computer you are writing your messages on. Why? If I create life in a universe, does that mean I know what is right and wrong for that life? Well, back to stoning children it is then. I kept them brief for you. But they do. The flood is one, the exodus is another, creation itself is perhaps the biggest kicker. Which is silly, since it has been proven to work. Agreed. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, which is why there isn't a single peer-reviewed, published study out there that shows even one of the creationist position to be correct. And don't give me that bullcrap about science "boycotting" creationists. I decided that evidence is the way to show what is real. And experience has taught me that it is. Hence, it is not a presupposition. Seems you haven't reach that point yet though, does it? But they're not, experience tells me evidence is reliable. This is the same method you use every day in every scenario you'd like to mention. You don't flip a coin to see if you should cross the street or not, no you look if there are cars coming. You don't lay out tarot cards to see if you should drink that bottle of rat poison, no, you read the description. In everything you do in your normal life, you use the same method as I do. And yet somehow, you seem to be saying that this method is not reliable. Very weird. Of course, what else would I use. Like I said, everything I have thus far seen in my life has shown me that evidence is the way to go. Heck, like I just argued, you think this as well, why else rely on it in your daily life? Like I said, my experience (and that of everybody else) tells me that when something is evidenced, it is true. Do you know of something that was evidenced yet wasn't true? No it isn't. Like I said, Everything I have seen in my life has shown me that evidence is reliable. I haev not once run into a situation where, say, evidence that a car is blue, actually meant that the car was green. Have you? It's not a presupposition. If you want to call that a presupposition, go right ahead. Have you got anything to show that I can't look at the evidence? WEll, I'm loking at it aren't I? Can you show I'm not actually looking at it? Then it's still all I have to go on. Which makes it irrelevant if it is an illusion or not. If you can show that it's an illusion, my position will change immediately. Then it would still be irrelevant. Until you can show it actually is an illusion, it's all we have to go on, and so is all that matters. Then that illusion is my reality. And until someone can show that it actually is an illusion, it is completely irrelevant. I hope my answers cleared it up a bit. Then it's still there, and until it can be demonstrated that it is an illusion, it doesn't matter that it is. If all we have to go on is illusion, that illusion becomes reality.

*Coughs*. Later I will respond to the rest of your message, but I couldn't leave this statement un-responded to for very long.Definition of reality: something that is real. So according to your answer to the question "what is real?", something that is real is...real.Need I say more?...Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

You also said: First, we need to define standard. In philosophy a standard is "a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment".So we see that your standard of morality (which I would consider to be a very low one) is derived from your own experiences, as well as the experiences of others. You further say that this standard is the only correct one. This is because - first of all - the very definition of a standard says that a standard is something than can be used to judge things, such as whether certain things are right or wrong. Second of all, you said it yourself (that there is only one right choice). You said there is only one right choice, and the way that you decide which choice is the right one is by the standard of experience (refer back to the two previous quotes).There are a host of things I can point out starting from this view. First of all I'll just ask this: do you define yourself as a pragmatist? Skepticist (later on in the message, you said you just don't know whether there is a god or not)?Also, I need to point out the stark contrast in our beliefs. You derive truth from yourself (or your own experiences). I believe "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). I believe "Good and upright is the LORD;Therefore He teaches sinners in the way." (Psalm 25:8). I believe "God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2:15). So we see that you derive your truth from yourself; an imperfect and potentially bad person (unless you would say that you were perfect). I derive my truth from God, who is good and upright, and who will judge the hearts of men in a just manner.I have been accused of having my head in a cockpit of lies. So (according to you) it is foolish for me to follow One who I believe to be a perfectly just and upright being, and yet you would be willing to follow one whom you know is imperfect, and potentially very bad (unless, of course, you would claim to be perfect). It appears as though following God (and yes, this is the God of The Bible; note the capital "G") is the only way that brings true morality, peace, and knowledge.But then you sing the same song in the umpteenth verse: why did God say to stone rebellious children? Once again, the best way for you to understand this would be to read the Bible. But since I assume you have your heart set against reading it, I will have to read it for you.First of all, you must understand the fulfillment of the Law: Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17). You see, under Israelite Law, the Israelites were required to sacrifice a lamb in atonement for sin. However, this lamb did not literally pay for their sins, because the lamb was affected by the curse, and could thus not carry the burden of another person's sins. But the lamb was required to be unblemished. This was so that the correct picture would be conveyed to the Israelites of a spotless lamb (Jesus Christ) being sacrificed in atonement for their sins. But since Christ had not yet paid for their (the Israelites) sins, the punishment for their sins had to remain intact. But now, since Jesus has paid the penalty for those sins (such as being rebellious), we are free from the condemnation of the Law.This does not mean that Jesus just died for the Gentiles. He died for Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 3:30). But on the time scale of the Jews, He had not yet died, so they were still punished by the Law. But after Jesus' death, the covenant that God made with Abraham was extended to the Gentiles, so that there is no longer a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Now, there is a distinction between the church (this does not mean "church-goers", it means those who have been born again), and the world. The Church is now, in a sense, what the "Jews" of the Old Testament were. But, or course, since Jesus has now paid the penalty for our sins, we do not have to suffer the penalty of being stoned for rebellion.I can't imagine - even with the most wild contrivances my mind could possibly come up with - how God is possibly unjust. I deserve to be stoned for rebellion, and yet, I am not stoned for it, because God in his infinite mercy decided to take the most ratty of scalawags and forgive him of his sins. Why is this God unjust to you? He was not only merciful to those living after Him, but He was also merciful to those living before him, enough that He died for all the sins of those who lived before Him (the Jews), and He was even more merciful to reveal his Law to the Israelites at all, so that they could then know what condemnation they would receive for committing sins. Would God have been unjust if He had not given us the Ten Commandments? No, not necessarily, this wouldn't have been unjust. But he was merciful enough to reveal His Law toward us, so that we might be able to avoid the greater condemnation. How is God then unjust to you? What is it about Him that offends you? Is it that He violates your philosophy of self-centerdness, that philosophy which says that you get to determine good and evil, rather than God? So what defines a natural death? Is an infection by a pathogen, or a living bacteria causing death, considered natural? If so, is death caused by a fish natural (what's the difference between a living bacteria and a fish?)? Is death cause by an alligator natural? Is death cause by a human natural? No one says that death caused by another human is natural. So is death caused by a bacterium any different? This forces us to conclude that no death is natural. I would be hard pressed to find where in my logic I said that might makes right. In fact, quite to the contrary, you are a proponent of "might makes right". You say that it is okay for an inferior species to go extinct (and extinction necessarily involves death). Refer to my orangutan anecdote (which you grossly avoided). (if you don't believe that orangutans cannibalize each other, then just watch the Disney series "Earth") You avoided my entire argument in your statement by getting technical. Okay, let's say that a species of orangutans arises that has big teeth and strong arms (or whatever else they may need), and as a result, they win their fights with other orangutans, and gradually, the small-toothed, weak-armed species of orangutans go extinct. And there you have "natural" selection (or do you think that cannibalization is the natural instinct of orangutans?). Notice that I was arguing from Hitler's standpoint, not my own.

---

I don't quite understand why you are now saying that I think that what Hitler did was right (you said this later in the message). I never said this. I said from Hitler's standpoint, the Jews were inferior to him. With that, I will end the deplorable Hitler discussion, as I did with dwise1.

---

A couple of times in the message, you said that natural selection doesn't involve the death of species, but the extinction of inferior species. But doesn't extinction involve death? How can a species go extinct if it never dies?

---

Let me ask the metaphysical question one more time.What is real? (the answer of "reality" does not suffice to answer this question).To the question "how do we know what is real" you replied "evidence". So is this a presupposition (that evidence is how we know what is real)? And by the way, if it is a presupposition, that's fine, I'm just trying to get you to admit that it is a presupposition.And to the third question...you didn't answer it. So try again.How do we live based on what we know is real?This is an incredibly basic ethical question that must be answered if you wish to have any morals or ethics whatsoever. I'm afraid not Buster, because you ain't God.

---

You are avoiding the question. Now - instead of operating under the standard of evidence - you are operating under the standard of experience. So you are begging the question. How do you know that experience is valid? How do you know that our memory is reliable?

---

Regarding my illusion example, I did not mean for it to turn into a lengthy discussion, so I will keep my response short.Suppose different people have different illusions? Or what if some people have illusions, while others have none? How can you communicate with people that are having an illusion that is different than your own? Do you know that you are really communicating with them?You don't have to answer every single one of these questions, because they are somewhat rhetorical. The point just being this: I think you must presume something with regards to the illusion or non-illusion of the world.

---

I have attempted in this message to make the argument somewhat more fundamental, so I want us to focus in on the three fundamental questions I asked. When you respond, you don't have to answer every single rhetorical question I ask, nor do you have to respond to every sentence I write. I primarily want you to answer the three fundamental questions I asked.

Actually yes. You asked me what is real. I told you what is real, that which is real. I really don't know how else I should call everything that is real except with the name we all gave it. Reality.

I never said that. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation. What one considers the correct one depends on one's morality, and notions of good and bad. Yep. Pragmatist, no. I do not hold that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that says nothing about it being true or not. Newton's laws of gravity work satisfactorily, yet they are wrong.. I do however hold that impractical ideas (i.e. ideas that can't be demonstrated to work in any way whatsoever) need to be discarded. Skeptic? Yes, very much so. No i don't. I derive truth from the evidence. Ok. I can't know what's good or bad, is that what you are saying? Should I just stop ignoring my sense of right and wrong? Afterall, how can an imperfect me really know if it's right or worng what I'm doing? Should I start flipping coins to see if I should rape, murder, enslave etc. people? Or should I rely on what my experience has taught me I should do? I'm sorry to tell you this but the god of the old testament is far from "good and upright", he commits massive atrocities, killing even innocents in the process. That's not a guy I would derive my morality from. Again. Should I trust my morality, or should I just start flipping coins? Also, you merely think god is perfect, and you merely ithink you can derive your morality from hm. In truth, you can't even show he exists. Which is complete bullcrap, as I think I've demonstrated by giving you examples of things I think are bad. I'm willing to venture a bet that you think they are bad as well. Is rape bad? Is murder? Is theft? Is enslavement (something which your god condoned, by the way)? I have read the bible, many times. I don't need your interpretation of it, I can read what it says perfectly well myself.So I'll skip that part. He kills innocents for one. No you don't deserve to be stoned for rebellion. As I have pointed out, sometimes rebellion is a good thing. If your parents told you to shoot that man, would you do it or choose to be rebellious? Do you then deserve stoning? He kills innocents, for one. Condones slavery for another. The ten commandments are a bunch of rules made up by people, who already thought those things were a good idea. No, it's that he kills innocents, and condones slavery, and tells a rape victim that when she is caught being raped should prepare to have her rapist pay her father and she should then be married to her rapist, and because he wants us to stone children, and he wants us to kill those that work on a particular day. Those are a few reasons why i think your god is unjust. If the person wasn't deliberately infected, yes. If the person wasn't fed to the fish, yes. The difference between a fish and a bacteria are numerous. I don't think I have to xplain them to you, now do I? If the person wasn't fed to it, yes. Nope. Hey, I didn't either. Makes you wonder how people get to that conclusion, eh? Yes. No it doesn't. What a weird position to take. Death by humans, who have a choice whether or not to kill, is completely different then death by a bacteria, who are simply doing what their single cell bodies need them to do to survive. If you can't see that, you're beyond hope. Paraphrasing here: "Hitler had a n army, he was stronger, that makes it right for him to kill the Jews". If that isn't might makes right, I don't know what is. No, I say it is natural for a species that is less fit to go extinct. I never said that species was inferior. That's something you made up. They're not a distinct species. Yes, that is natural selection at work. The Orang-utans traits that are beneficial will spread. What this has to do with cannibalism is beyond me, however. Again, if you don't think you're argument makes any sense, why make it? Then again I ask you why you make these arguments if you don't think they're any good? No I didn't. I said less fit species. I never said they were inferior. Stop putting words in my mouth. Evolution makes no value judgement (for the second time) I'm sorry, what? Individuals die. Species go extinct. Of course it does. everything that is real has a word we assigned to it. This word is reality. No it is something my experience has shown me (and you by the way) to be the case. My answer was we live well. As can be seen all around us. I've got quite a comfortable life. And this is because everybody that contributed to it lived based on the idea that reality is real. I don't really understand your question. What has knowing that reality is real, and using evidence (which has been shown time and again to be reliable) to determine this has got anything to do with how one lives his life? So ? You said that the reason god knows what is right and wrng for us is because he created us. How do you know that god knows what is right and wrong if that is not the criteria? Do you know everything about him? Have you even shown him to exist at all? It has shown itself to be throughout my life. Can you show that it hasn't? I share my experineces with other people, they agree with me. In fact, I haven't run into a single individual who, when I say: "That car is red" has said to me "No way, that car is green!". From this I let follow that there my senses are giving me reliable information. When I start running into people that consistently say "That car is green" when I say it is red, then I will start doubting my sense. Until then, they seem to be working in accordance to every other individual I have come across. Yes, that's perhaps one of my bad habits. But I feel points need to be made very exactly. Else confusion can arise later on about some minor side issues that distract from the topic.I have answered your questions for you. I don't see any other way to answer them, frankly.