|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 17, 2011 03:00 AM |
|
|
2. But many things in science can be proven and backed up.
In religion, those things can almost never be backed up and that's why it's called "faith" (though I have a hard time understanding why people would believe stuff that can in no way be proven)
One of the big differences between religion and science is that science is quick to adapt. Science always has theories, and those theories don't just show up out of the blue
Science rarely says that they know for sure that for instance the big bang happened, if a better theory with more evidence is found then that will be the theory that's going to be taught in schools.
In religion, all "evidence" comes from some old book that anybody could have written. I guess in a way I view the bible in the same way as my teachers (unfortunaly) view wikipedia 
(we use wikipedia ALL THE TIME so please the US, pleeeease don't destroy the internet?)
Religion is static. Science is dynamic and constantly evolves.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2011 03:11 AM |
|
|
|
huh no, it has nothing to do with the difference between religion and science. science can also be static, and religion can also evolve, it just depends on the people, some are more open minded than others.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2011 03:19 AM |
|
|
science has changed a lot more over 2000 years than a religion such as islam has
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 17, 2011 06:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
science has changed a lot more over 2000 years than a religion such as islam has
For your evidence you bring up the most static of all religions to exist besides Hinduism and Judaism. Have we ignored the protestant church (with its 1000+ changing and growing denominations) entirely now? Not saying that in most religions this rule isn't true, but there are notable examples where it is not.
BTW: Pro tip. "In any discussion, ever, if you want to actually win, using absolutes with a crowd that does not believe in the same thing as you will not help you win anyone over to your side." I used absolutes in that sentence, many, many absolutes. And I'm guessing you could give me examples as to how and where I am wrong. Now, before you go off on me, compare my previous statement with this statement:
"In most discussions it is not wise to use absolutes, as they tend to make those who disagree with you disagree all the more vehemently as you seem to absolutely oppose them. This is why the use of absolutes like "Always," "Never," and "Any" should not be used in favor of words like "Generally," "Rarely," and "Most," as the words are often just as correct and are much harder to disagree with."
By all the gods, I loved that mock trial class. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2011 09:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A suit is underway in Utah to contest the state's bigamy law. What say ye, should polygamy be legalized in the US (or wherever you are from?)
For the state it should be a question of practicability. The problem with marriage isn't marriage, but divorce. The question would generally be, is a "civil union" generally possible only between 2 people or can it be between any number of them?
Without thinking too much about it, I can imagine a marriage between more than one people only, if
a) EVERYONE is asked (if 2 people are already married, and a third or fourth is tied up into it, all originally married must say yes).
b) a document must be signed by all parties that regulates all consequences of a divorce without any possibility to go to court with it (otherwise a bigamy law would drown society with potentially endless lawsuits).
I don't see such a law coming. People have no right to claim unlimited services, and marriage as a civil union is something like a service and not a right - they can always live together the way they want without that.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 17, 2011 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
science has changed a lot more over 2000 years than a religion such as islam has
Science was really static until the 16th century(ca. 1500-1600), but it had advanced and changed itself more than any competing religions ever did.
From the 16th century and until today, science as a cult has reformed itself several times. The lumnifus aether theory is one of them, psycologi is another one large tema of worldview changes.
For Religions is mostly a matter of which cults has influence, and how much support it has from the center of power.
Its also a matter of the difference between how Christianity worked(clergy became a separat ruling class with its own legitimate blackmail powers), in contrast to other religions where they mostly intigrated besides the rule and held minor power. Any change was just a new part of the cult gaining headseat and population, which is usually minor.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 12:23 AM |
|
|
I have a question for Elodin. In the past you have said that atheists have no reason to be moral, or that they can't logically use the terms "moral" and "immoral". Could you explain your reasoning? I'd like to know your thoughts on this, so take your time if you need to - I don't want a short reflexive answer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 03:15 AM |
|
|
|
Can I kill the author? If it is not true, and the 2100-century, humanity is able to arouse the people to life again after. When my friend died about a week ago. He claimed that Satan was persecuting him. So jumped from floor house. Now I have a little guy.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 03:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
He claimed that Satan was persecuting him. So jumped from floor house. Now I have a little guy.
Isn't suicide like yer free ticket to hell? What am I talking about, of course it is.
Edit 20 post limit lol:
Quote:
hypothetically, to stone adultresses, stoning them is the MORAL thing to do.
There's that word again, hypothetically, when Elodin just clearly said that god's will is unchanging, ERGO! There's no room for hypotheticals.
Quote:
perfect and unchanging character of God
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 03:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
He claimed that Satan was persecuting him. So jumped from floor house. Now I have a little guy.
Isn't suicide like yer free ticket to hell? What am I talking about, of course it is.
Satan said to him, "go to hell". Although he came to Pentecost three years ago.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:28 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 20 Jul 2012. |
Edited by Elodin at 07:41, 19 Jul 2012.
|
@Mvass
Below I have edited and expanded an answer I gave on the question of the basis morality some time ago. I hope this helps you understand what I believe.
Deity, humanity, and morality
Why there is no basis for morality if there is no God
Morality poses a very difficult problem for a materialistic atheistic world view. Certainly atheists can be moral people with great integrity. Most believe in the concepts of right and wrong. However, these concepts are illogical and inconsistent within a worldview in which God does not exist. When a materialistic atheist uses the concepts of morality and immorality he is borrowing from a theistic worldview. If the universe came into being from a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause that means evolution is non-theistic--there is no guiding hand behind it which means there is no basis for morality.
Non-theistic evolution
1) is based merely on chance--random events. It is a blind, with no purpose other than to benefit the propagation of one’s genes.
2) is merely survival of the fittest with the weak dying out or being exterminated to make way for "the strong ."
3) implies there is no such thing as a moral or immoral action.
In a world without God there is no absolute morality. No objective standard by which to measure what is ‘good’. What is moral or immoral is merely a matter of personal opinion and indeed the concept of morality makes no sense. "Might" is "right." The strong exterminating the weak is natural. There is no basis in such a worldview to say a person who kills another to take what is wanted committed an immoral act. Might is right.
Hitler (the ultimate "strong" person in Germany) decided to exterminate the Jews, who were in no position to oppose him (they were "weak.") So, on what basis would an atheist say Hitler committed an immoral act and on what basis is that the objective standard for judging morality? There have obviously been people who agreed with Hitler and people who disagreed with Hitler. Neither group's position is moral or immoral if morality is not absolute. It is obvious that morality based on societal whims or personal whims is inconsistent and contradictory.
4) The concept of charity, essentially "the strong" helping "the weak," is counter to the idea of non-theistic evolution. A person who helps a random stranger with no expectation of personal gain is foolish for expending his resources without gain, making him weaker and less likely to survive.
Does this mean those holding to non-theist evolution cannot live a moral, ethical life? No. But when they see unethical behavior by others, they have no logical grounds on which to judge that behavior as wrong. It may be their choice to be faithful to their spouse, and to do good to others. But it may be another’s choice to sleep around on his spouse, or to take advantage of everyone around them in order to get ahead. If non-theistic evolution is true, then neither position is right or wrong. Just different choices. In a world without God it can't be justified to call rape, murder, theft, or anything else morally wrong. The concept of morality simply can't be justified in a world view in which God does not exist.
Either morality is absolute or morality does not exist. Subjective morality is nothing more than opinions. Subjective morals change with time, differ between places, and differ from person to person. If morality is subjective raping and murdering a baby is not less moral than stopping to assist a stranger who is lying unconscious on the street.
The Foundation of morality
The Bible begins with, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and goes on to say God made man in his image. As creations of God we are obligated to live according to his standard. Moreover, because man was made in the image of God (though that image in man is now marred) man is a moral being who partially reflects the character of God. The Bible teaches that God has written his Law on man's heart(Romans 2:15). Man has the ability to discover moral principles through contemplation of himself and the world around him and through fellowship with God.
The foundation of morality is God's will and his perfect and unchanging nature..Actions that are in opposition to God's permissive will or character are immoral.
As I have stated in other discussions, when God gave the Ten Commandments he was not giving a new revelation of morality but saying, "these moral principles that you know are the way I created you to be and I will hold you responsible for living by them." The Hebrew people already knew it was wrong to lie and murder before the Ten Commandments were given. Now they were told they were accountable for living that way and that God was the very reason for the existence of those moral precepts. Thus basic moral principles are God-given, written in human nature, recognizable by human reason, and applicable to all of humanity everywhere humankind lives.
Above I said that man has the ability to discover moral principles. Man does not have the ability to make moral principles. Morality is objective, not subjective. Neither the political rule of the many nor the rule of "religious elites" can by decree make something moral or immoral. Congress can't pass a law tomorrow saying that it is ok to rape babies and actually make it morally ok to rape babies. A society based around hating and killing Jews would not make hating and killing Jews in fact moral. Legality does not establish morality. Likewise, religious leaders can't make moral principles. A denominational church board or a pope can't declare that adultery is no longer immoral and make it in actuality a moral action.
A purely materialistic worldview rationally has no standard of morality. If one makes a claim that morality is based merely on man's genetic makeup and that the genetic makeup had no divine hand in it several questions are raised.
1) Which DNA stand encodes morality?
2) If such a strand exists, by what standard can we recognize that what is encoded is right or wrong?
3) If Mao Tse-Tsung’s DNA strand says murdering millions of Chinese people is morally permissible for him then is what he did wrong or right?
4) If genes determine morality why was slavery considered moral 200 years ago but then suddenly it began to be considered immoral, at least in the West. Did man have an evolutionary leap where the genes of even living person suddenly changed? Are the people in societies that still have slavery less evolved than people in the parts of the world that don't approve of slavery?
5) If genes determine morality are people who disagree with society about what is moral genetically defective or more evolved, and on what standard will you make that judgment?
Why did God "write" certain moral standards within man?
1) Because he wanted to have other beings like himself to fellowship with. Thus man was made in the image of God so he could fellowship with God.
2) So man could fellowship with each other. There is an absolute standard on which societies can be built and prosper.
3) People are precious to God. God desires the best for each of us. God designed us and knows what is best for us.
4) So everyone who wanted to know how God wants us to live can know how God wants us to live. The internal standard God has written within man that is knowable by man and God holds man accountable for living by those standards.
Summary
To summarize, absolute morals are based on the perfect and unchanging character of God. God has internalized moral precepts in man and made it possible for moral precepts to be known by man and man is held accountable for living a moral life. The fallen nature of man imperfectly reflects the character of God. The Christian worldview can logically claim morality is absolute since Christianity views morality as being based on the perfect, unchanging nature of God. The atheistic worldview cannot claim absolute morality because it can only offer only a morality based on personal opinion or the whims of society--such a morality is relativistic: inconsistent and self-contradictory across time and places mankind lives.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 09:26 AM |
|
|
Why does morality require a supernatural guiding hand? Also, why does belief in evolution guided by survival of the fittest imply no morality? Non-religious systems of morality exist, and very few of them reference evolution in any way. Suppose I say, "Evolution is the result of the fittest individuals reproducing and passing on their traits to their offspring, and that is how humans came to exist." How is that statement inconsistent with believing in some moral system? As I understand it - and I think my understanding is shared by many others - morality is a question about what one should do or what kind of person one should be. As I see it, belief in evolution is unrelated to that. Believing that survival of the fittest drives evolution does not imply that one should personally abide by survival of the fittest.
Unlike many atheists, I believe morality is objective (strictly speaking, "absolute" means something different). I agree with you that morality must either be objective or not exist at all - subjective morality is nonsense. But I can justify objective morality without referring to God. It would be uncontroversial for me to say that happiness is good - that's agreed upon virtually universally. Then, given human nature, there are certain virtues which objectively promote happiness for someone possessing that nature (so, most people, but not mentally unhealthy people such as the depressed or sociopaths, who should be treated). These virtues include proper benevolence, rationality, honesty, justice, etc - and if you possess these virtues, you will be happy (assuming there aren't serious circumstances in your life that prevent it, but in most cases they can only prevent it temporarily). Possessing these virtues necessarily means you should act a certain way - honesty means you shouldn't lie, justice means you should treat people fairly, proper benevolence means you should act to benefit the people you value, etc.
To summarize simply, happiness is good. For a healthy human, being virtuous is a large component of happiness. Being virtuous requires acting morally. Notice that none of this references humans' genetic makeup or "survival of the fittest".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 10:38 AM |
|
|
Not wanting to intrude, but Mvass, your point is inconsistent. We have to establish the grounds.
For Elodin it's the following way. He BELIEVES in (that is postulates) the existence of an absolute creator being and declares, that moral means "following the will of this being". The consequences and so on are irrelevant. It's moral fo follow the will and immoral to disobey it. Case closed. You have to realize that this DEFINES moral and immoral. If God's will is, hypothetically, to stone adultresses, stoning them is the MORAL thing to do.
Now, you can't that counter that with pulling the words "happiness" and "objective" out of some hat.
A human isn't objective, but SUBjective, so where is objectivity supposed to come from? To answer this, we have to take a look on human nature. What IS a human being? Humans are no lone predators like certain cats or sharks - if they were, there was ONLY subjective, since everyone else was either prey or rival. Neither are we hive beings like certain insects - if we were, the Queen was something like god, and the queens survival and well-being was the ultimate yardstick.
Are we pack hunters? If we were, males would fight for absolute leadership and domination of the pack in order to be the first to spread our genes. I think we can safely say no to that as well, because we do not need to hunt to survive. Humans are omnivores, so they have certain similarities with rats and pigs. 
So we come to two very important facts here:
1) We are no loners
2) There are no superior samples within the species homo sapiens (there is no queen, there are no alpha males and so on)
This in turn leads to the following conclusion:
We want to live in communities and within any given community all members are "equal".
This simple derivation of what our nature actually is and what it means, defines "moral", because everything must be in keeping with that. Which means that this is the yardstick or BASIC foundation, and moral would be everything in accordance with that, while immoral would be everything violating it.
Why, for example, shouldn't you kill another human? Answer: Since all members of your society are equal, if YOU kill another human, EVERYONE can do it. If everyone can do it, it will not only endanger the community, but annihilate it, and therefore it's immoral.
The same thing is true for relations between communities. All communities of people are equal (which is why wars are inherently immoral, because in the end they lead to annihilation).
Note that a lot of atrocities have been committed on the assumption that either not all humans or all communities of humans would be equal, which immediately kills the foundation for this kind of moral behaviour. Note further, that this is true even under Elodin's absolute morals. If the Christian world concluded (and they DID conclude it) that certain non-caucasian samples of the species human were LESS than human, then suddenly those lesser humans are still part of God's creation, but belong to the rest that real humans were made to dominate.
"Happiness" is already included in the concept of living in a community of equals, as opposed to living alone, because it's the bottom line (all unhappiness is the result of (perceived) inequality and/or loneliness/isolation which is possible to experience even within a community (for example when someone is fundamentally different from the rest)).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 01:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit 20 post limit lol:
Quote:
hypothetically, to stone adultresses, stoning them is the MORAL thing to do.
There's that word again, hypothetically, when Elodin just clearly said that god's will is unchanging, ERGO! There's no room for hypotheticals.
Quote:
perfect and unchanging character of God
Good thing then, the example wasn't that hypothetical, right?  Leviticus 20:10.
The main thing to keep in mind is that God's will is decisive here. He determines the rules and following them is the moral thing to do. Obviously the Leviticus 20:9 to 20:21 rules were in effect for the Israelites, brought to them by Moses. So for them at least it wasn't hypothetical at all and the moral thing to do.
Now, these rules don't seem to be in effect anymore which may be explained by the fact that the Israelites had ceased to exist and God decided to alter the rules a bit when sending Jesus. All debatable of course. Still, Leviticus 20:9-20:21 doesn't seem to be in effect anymore for any Christians or Jews - or are they? If it was God's will THEN, has his will changed - or are simply the people extinct for which he would have willed to behave that way?
In this case there mights as well come a time AGAIN, when therewould be people for whom those rules would revived. So hypothetically is not that wrong to use, even if God's will is unchanging...
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 06:08 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin:
Rarely have I read such humongous amounts of fantastical bullcrap crammed into a single post.
Dear Lord how do you manage to put your panties on in the morning? It baffles me, really.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:04 PM |
|
|
JJ:
While it is true that man is a social animal and gains a lot from interaction with fellow humans (both through trade and through the emotional benefits that come from positive interpersonal connections), I disagree that all communities are equal. Is a ghetto or a trailer park equal to a community of virtuous, intelligent, happy people? All people should be equal before the law, and there should be no discrimination based on arbitrary irrelevant characteristics (such as race or sexual orientation), but not all people are equal. If you would rather spend your time with some people than with the average person, you yourself don't believe all people are equal.
Your explanation for why murder is immoral is correct but incomplete. While that's an argument that can be used to persuade a sociopath, there is more to it - if you're a mentally healthy human, murder is bad for you because it is an anti-virtuous action that will make you less happy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if you're a mentally healthy human, murder is bad for you because it is an anti-virtuous action that will make you less happy.
I would argue the same for working in the stock exchange, or politics, or advertising industry.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Is a ghetto or a trailer park equal to a community of virtuous, intelligent, happy people? All people should be equal before the law, and there should be no discrimination based on arbitrary irrelevant characteristics (such as race or sexual orientation), but not all people are equal.
Of course they are equal. They are equal in the sense that they are the same species. Differing life conditions make no quality difference.
Your introduction of "happiness" and "virtue" is arbitrary. Happiness is a suibjective feeling, while virtue is a term that's not defined. It's just another word for moral, but it isn't self-explanatory.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:32 PM |
|
|
It's not a question of life conditions but one of character. If you give them money, they're not going to become better people - just look at lottery winners.
Happiness is partially situational, but given human nature, there are certain virtues that are inherently conducive to it. Virtues are character traits possessed by individuals that bring them happiness according to their human nature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2012 09:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not a question of life conditions but one of character. If you give them money, they're not going to become better people - just look at lottery winners.
Happiness is partially situational, but given human nature, there are certain virtues that are inherently conducive to it. Virtues are character traits possessed by individuals that bring them happiness according to their human nature.
Umm, WHAT? How does your version of human gets in posession of those virtues?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
