Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   atheism
joz
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 111 (6611)
03-11-2002 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Solid Snake
03-11-2002 4:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Solid Snake:
Thats exactly my point. (Maybe not so much in this case). But rules are ussually crap. You ever buy something new and it comes with a whole bunch of stupid warnings and cautions. No one ever read those things, but they're there to cover someones butt. I really have better things to do with my time, than read " Caution: Coffee is hot" In 4 different languages. Oh and don't worry, I know some of the people personally on this board.
It really doesn`t matter what you think of rules in general bud, these are Percys boards and as such he, not you or I, gets to decide what a reasonable level of civility is....
He makes the rules for reason, to avoid the whole discussion sinking to the level that you reached earlier. IOW follow the rules or Percy may decide he doesn`t want you posting here.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Solid Snake, posted 03-11-2002 4:34 PM Solid Snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 111 (6624)
03-11-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Solid Snake
03-11-2002 4:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Solid Snake:
Thats exactly my point. (Maybe not so much in this case). But rules are ussually crap. You ever buy something new and it comes with a whole bunch of stupid warnings and cautions. No one ever read those things, but they're there to cover someones butt. I really have better things to do with my time, than read " Caution: Coffee is hot" In 4 different languages. Oh and don't worry, I know some of the people personally on this board.
Aw, shucks, I had no idea that no one ever reads the guidelines. And after I put so much time and effort into them, too.
The guidelines were put in place to prevent flame wars and keep discussion focused. Try it, you'll like it.
--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)
PS - Enforcement begins with warnings (eg, this message), moves on to 24-hour suspension of posting privileges, and then longer periods if necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Solid Snake, posted 03-11-2002 4:34 PM Solid Snake has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 111 (6628)
03-11-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Punisher
03-11-2002 12:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Nothing, that was the point of my post. Someone mentioned the inquistion and the crusades in an attempt to invalidate Christianity.
I wasn't trying to invalidate christianity, just point out that christian faith isn't composed of universal morals. What has been morally acceptable has changed over time, and depends largely on the society in which you grow up ( my whole point about the incest issue is that at one time it was acceptable, but later it wasn't. This seems a change in morality to me.) Also, religious institutions , christian faiths among them, have misused the word of god to commit atrocious acts. While we can most probably agree, both the inquisition and the crusades were historical events that actually had political moves guised in religion. However, both had ardent supporters (both in of the cloth and not) who felt their heinous crimes were morally justified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 12:27 PM Punisher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Peter, posted 03-14-2002 7:39 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 94 of 111 (6798)
03-14-2002 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Darwin Storm
03-11-2002 9:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
I wasn't trying to invalidate christianity, just point out that christian faith isn't composed of universal morals. What has been morally acceptable has changed over time, and depends largely on the society in which you grow up ( my whole point about the incest issue is that at one time it was acceptable, but later it wasn't. This seems a change in morality to me.) Also, religious institutions , christian faiths among them, have misused the word of god to commit atrocious acts. While we can most probably agree, both the inquisition and the crusades were historical events that actually had political moves guised in religion. However, both had ardent supporters (both in of the cloth and not) who felt their heinous crimes were morally justified.

This is a valid point, and I'd ask (again) for a UNIVERSAL MORAL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-11-2002 9:58 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 111 (6886)
03-15-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Punisher
03-11-2002 12:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
No need to get short, I am involved in a number of threads, give me some time.
Sorry about how that message "sounded". I wasn't meaning to be snippy at you, just brief and to the point. Take all the time you need.
Allison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 12:25 PM Punisher has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 111 (6887)
03-15-2002 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Punisher
03-11-2002 12:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Nothing, that was the point of my post. Someone mentioned the inquistion and the crusades in an attempt to invalidate Christianity.
Well, you are the one who brought up the misuse of the ToE in order to discredit it, so I don't think you meant "nothing" by it.
Ah, but there is a big difference between people misapplying a scientific theory for political ends and the use of Christianity to perpetrate the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Using the ToE (or any theory) in this way is completely inappropriate because scientific theories are only meaningful and useful when one is doing science. IOW, in that narrow focus. These ideologues extrapolated far, far beyond what the evidence showed and inserted a great deal of their own philosophy into the theory where it was not AT ALL supported by any evidence.
The Bible, OTOH, is meant to instruct us on moral and ethical behaviors. Obviously, a great many people, for a great many years, interpreted the Bible to mean that the Inquisition and the Crusades were GOD'S WILL and holy and wonderful acts.
People who kill doctors and bomb Planned Parenthood clinics think they are doing God's work, too.
The problem with Christianity is that it is not evidence-based, but relevatory, in nature. That means that anyone who interprets the Bible in a certain way, and who also gets a large enough group to agree with that interpretation, is going to have a lot of influence. Interpretation can obviously be wildly different depending upon the person and the circumstances, and this is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 12:27 PM Punisher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Solid Snake, posted 03-15-2002 7:47 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 111 (6888)
03-15-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Punisher
03-11-2002 12:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]
quote:
You are oversimplifying evolution to say that it is only 'time and chance acting on matter'. The big part you are leaving out is selection by the environment. Those individuals with a greater ability to reason would have been selected for if it was a reproductive advantage.
Selected by whom? The environment? Could you be more specific? Isn’t that the same thing as saying time and chance?[/QUOTE]
Yes, selection by the environment, and no that's not at all the same as saying "time and chance".
See, the only random part of evolution is mutation. The mutations which are allowed to remain in the population is determined by the environment. The environmental pressures on a population are non-random.
Here is further info which should be helpful:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
""The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating."
quote:
Post-modern relatavism?
Be careful, this will almost certainly backfire on you. If there is no objective reality and all perceptions are equally valid, then Satanism is just as "true" as Christianity.
My example was from an atheistic standpoint. Am I correct in stating that our thought processes (according to your belief) are nothing but chemical reactions?
Yes, but what does that have to do with Atheism, or your insistance that all thoughts are somehow equally valid when it comes to describing the natural world?
I am not an Atheist, BTW.
quote:
OK, but what does this have to do with Biology and the ToE?
I’m sorry; I honestly don’t understand the question. [/b][/QUOTE]
Let's drop this last point, as it's kind of a rhetorical question anyway.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 12:45 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Solid Snake
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 111 (6940)
03-15-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
03-15-2002 7:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The problem with Christianity is that it is not evidence-based, but relevatory, in nature. That means that anyone who interprets the Bible in a certain way, and who also gets a large enough group to agree with that interpretation, is going to have a lot of influence. Interpretation can obviously be wildly different depending upon the person and the circumstances, and this is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 03-15-2002 7:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-16-2002 6:54 PM Solid Snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 111 (7047)
03-16-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Solid Snake
03-15-2002 7:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Solid Snake:
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY.
Cool.
Glad I could be helpful.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Solid Snake, posted 03-15-2002 7:47 PM Solid Snake has not replied

  
Solid Snake
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 111 (7078)
03-16-2002 11:57 PM


I ask anyone to prove that there are universal moarals shared by anyone.
You looking for a challenge Cobra?
------------------
And with that he threw down his flaming sword, and gave God the finger. Since then it has been decreed that angels are hence forth not to consume alchohol.~~~Metetron the Voice of God (Alan Rickman)

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 12:36 AM Solid Snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 111 (7081)
03-17-2002 12:25 AM


I'm sure I could smear you in any REAL challenge.
However, there is no way for me to "prove" that there are universal morals, just like there is no way for you to "prove" that there are not.

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 111 (7083)
03-17-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Solid Snake
03-16-2002 11:57 PM


"I ask anyone to prove that there are universal moarals shared by anyone."
--Your allways going to have one culture or another or one person or another breaking one of the 10 commandments regularely, how is this relevant?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Solid Snake, posted 03-16-2002 11:57 PM Solid Snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-17-2002 4:20 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 109 by Peter, posted 03-20-2002 10:40 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 111 (7127)
03-17-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by TrueCreation
03-17-2002 12:36 AM


Take, thou shalt not kill. Now, this is a good solid moral. However, what happens when you consider self defense? If someone comes into your home and is going to kill you and your family, are you not justified, morally, in taking the life of that person to protect your family? Have you acted immorally? Should you have done nothing and merely accepted the death of your family because you refused to fight back? It is not always possible to avoid conflict.
The point is, that there are moral guidlines, common to most cultures, however, many are dependent on the situation and the society in which they occur. Seppeku, ritual suicide, was an acceptable and moral way in Japan to expunge one's shame. However, suicide is generally frowned upon by judeo-christian faiths. Of course, then what about terminal patients living in pain? Do they have the right to end their own suffering? Or must they suffer till their body gives out on them? I know this is a sticky moral issue, and it is one that is currently a source of controversy in the US. Its not clear cut.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 12:36 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by TrueCreation, posted 03-17-2002 4:34 PM Darwin Storm has not replied
 Message 106 by Punisher, posted 03-18-2002 11:11 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 111 (7130)
03-17-2002 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Darwin Storm
03-17-2002 4:20 PM


"Take, thou shalt not kill. Now, this is a good solid moral. However, what happens when you consider self defense? If someone comes into your home and is going to kill you and your family, are you not justified, morally, in taking the life of that person to protect your family? Have you acted immorally? Should you have done nothing and merely accepted the death of your family because you refused to fight back? It is not always possible to avoid conflict.
The point is, that there are moral guidlines, common to most cultures, however, many are dependent on the situation and the society in which they occur. Seppeku, ritual suicide, was an acceptable and moral way in Japan to expunge one's shame. However, suicide is generally frowned upon by judeo-christian faiths. Of course, then what about terminal patients living in pain? Do they have the right to end their own suffering? Or must they suffer till their body gives out on them? I know this is a sticky moral issue, and it is one that is currently a source of controversy in the US. Its not clear cut."
--Yes this is true, though must you intentionally kill the intruder? Why not attempt to (lets assume you have a gun) shoot him in the stomach rather than the head? You must justify your intentions in this conflict. If your intention wasn't to kill him but to do what it takes to stop the conflict then you are fine and are in the line of defense. I would have to do research on what the bibles morals are on living in pain.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-17-2002 4:20 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 111 (7214)
03-18-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Solid Snake
03-11-2002 4:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Solid Snake:
Thats exactly my point. (Maybe not so much in this case). But rules are ussually crap. You ever buy something new and it comes with a whole bunch of stupid warnings and cautions. No one ever read those things, but they're there to cover someones butt. I really have better things to do with my time, than read " Caution: Coffee is hot" In 4 different languages. Oh and don't worry, I know some of the people personally on this board.
Yeah, those stupid rules about stopping at red lights while I'm driving. I think they are really dumb and useless. I don't think that we should have rules for driving anymore because it's so unfair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Solid Snake, posted 03-11-2002 4:34 PM Solid Snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by KingPenguin, posted 03-18-2002 6:38 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024