Jump to content


Photo

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#81 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:13 AM

1. I never said they did. This, like most of your response is incoherent. You did not honestly take in anything I had to say.

2. No, no more than we're committing murder when we eat a steak. It does when it kills another lion though. Species have moral instincts against killing or harming their own kind, not against eating other animals. As someone pointed out once, even during a feeding frenzy pirahna never attack each other.

3. How exactly would it be "claimed" as rape by a lion? You're saying that species have no social instincts guiding their behavior whatsoever? So a school of fish has no instincts telling them to stay close and swim in the same direction? A lion will just as gladly eat it's fellow lions as it will a gazelle?

4. No, he doesn't. The quote you gave is talking about the properties of the universe being indifferent, not evolved species having no sense of right or wrong. In other words gravity accellerates everything downward at the same rate whether it's pulling a game-winning free throw into the hoop or pulling your head toward concrete to kill you. It is by definition constant which is by definition indifferent. Animals on the other hand have the same basic psychology we do in many cases. If animals are "pitiless and indifferent" as you mis-quote dawkins saying, how do you account for this:


5. Are you saying animals don't love and want to protect their offspring or members of their group? Seriously?


6. You think you're some genius for pointing out to me that hand grenades kill people like I didn't know that?

7. Stop being dishonest and deal with what I actually said.

8. I didn't say that god said raping children was good, stop lying and deal with what I actually said. Or just don't respond if you're not going to.

9. So is it wrong to rape a child because it would harm the child or is it wrong because god decrees it's wrong? And if the latter, if god said it's good would it be morally good (even though it still does the same harm)?

10. I went out on a limb and guessed there are no slavery supporters here. Are you saying there are racists on this forum? I just read in the youtube guidelines that videos posted must be "mostly non-racist", so who knows.


11. That isn't what subjective and objective mean. Something is objective if it exists outside of the human mind, ie an atom or a chair or the planet. It can be verified by others to exist. Morality is just as much an objective part of human (and animal) nature as sexuality or anger or anything else.



12. Then how is that different than what I said that if right and wrong are dictated by the intrinsic nature of things and if god created life and people and the universe with specific properties he is by definition the author of morality. You chose to ignore that and misrepresent my other comments instead.


Sigh.....

1. I quoted you stating this....

"I think morality is grounded in natural law"

Again you forget what you post, (honestly you need to get a doctor to look at these memory lapses). Its in your post #72 if you wanted to check.

2. Really? So when males kill each other over females this doesn't contradict your claim here....

3. Never said that animals cannot display morals, I am saying that when animals partake in the things we would deem evil we do not consider them evil. That is my point and one which you've totally failed to grasp.

4. Being indifferent is what I am getting at... Again you have failed to grasp the point.. Here I'll make it easy for you. Indifferent = no good and no evil, no good and no evil = no morality

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference . . . DNA neither caresnor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995), 133.

5. Strawman fallacy, I never stated that.

6. Did I ever claim that I was a genius? Red Herring logical fallacy

7. Pot calling the kettle black, since you haven't addressed my counter point, except to whine and complain about something I never said (point 6). Care to demonstrate how our knowledge of hand grenades killing people would constitute as morality from nature?

8. Did you not say this?

"On the other hand you have authoritarian morality, the notion that something is good or bad not because of it's intrinsic nature or potential consequences, but because god (or whatever authority figure) says so. That might makes right. In which case god could say raping children is good and it would be good (even though it still causes horror and incredible pain to the child)."

The fact that God doesn't say this rebutts your point on its own accord. Therefore no "lying" here.

9. I don't deal with hypotheticals, I prefer to stick to reality. Feel free to meet up with your evo mates in imagination-land though, I won't hold anything against you.

10. Never said that, only pointing out that you are new, and thus cannot hope to know all the people on this forum... So shouldn't be making a blanket statement about the people on this forum.

11. Sigh... Here come debate the dictonary...

http://dictionary.re...rowse/objective
http://dictionary.re...owse/subjective

ob·jec·tive
   /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA






adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.




sub·jec·tive
   /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA

adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.



12. And we come full circle, back to the "natural law" belief which in your point 1 you stated you never claimed... Oops. Nature holds no morals, Dawkins figured it out and I have quoted him, other evolutionists have figured it out too. Nature is indifferent, it has no good no evil no right no wrong, it is merely neutral.

#82 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

"I quoted you stating this....

"I think morality is grounded in natural law"
Again you forget what you post, (honestly you need to get a doctor to look at these memory lapses). Its in your post #72 if you wanted to check."

And completely misunderstood what I was saying, despite the fact that I elaborated at length. Read up on the concept of natural law sometime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

"Really? So when males kill each other over females this doesn't contradict your claim here...."

No more than when you go on a diet it proves you don't have a compulsion to eat food. Having an instinct and universally obeying it are two different things. And it's worth mentioning that you're still arguing that animals don't have morals when you claim below you're not saying that.

"Never said that animals cannot display morals, I am saying that when animals partake in the things we would deem evil we do not consider them evil. That is my point and one which you've totally failed to grasp."

I think a lion ripping apart a creature that's harmed no one is "evil", in the sense of being bad, causing suffering etc - I just have no means with which to avoid it.

"Being indifferent is what I am getting at... Again you have failed to grasp the point.. Here I'll make it easy for you. Indifferent = no good and no evil, no good and no evil = no morality"

Don't patronize me, I just explained to you why the properties of the universe are indifferent to our suffering and how we know they are. Some of the species that operate by those properties are another matter however. An atom has no desire to do or not do anything, a person does. How is this a controvertial statement?

"Strawman fallacy, I never stated that."

You are either being dishonest or you just lack basic reading comprehension. I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. Asking someone for clarification of their position is not a logical fallacy.

"Did I ever claim that I was a genius? Red Herring logical fallacy"

Again, basic reading comprehension. When there's a question mark it's a question, not a statement.

"Pot calling the kettle black, since you haven't addressed my counter point, except to whine and complain about something I never said (point 6)."

What counter point did I not address?

"Care to demonstrate how our knowledge of hand grenades killing people would constitute as morality from nature?"

Suffering and fear are intrinsically bad and it is our nature to want to avoid them. Intrinsically bad things are intrinsically bad, no other basis is required.

Do you need to be told hitting your thumb with a hammer isn't a good thing? Or can you figure it out on your own?

"Did you not say this?
["On the other hand you have authoritarian morality, the notion that something is good or bad not because of it's intrinsic nature or potential consequences, but because god (or whatever authority figure) says so. That might makes right. In which case god could say raping children is good and it would be good (even though it still causes horror and incredible pain to the child)."]

"The fact that God doesn't say this rebutts your point on its own accord. Therefore no "lying" here."

Again basic reading comprehension. I used a hypothetical (ie something that hasn't happened) to illustrate the nature of morality in an authoritarian moral worldview. You just either don't know how to read properly or are looking at what I say with one eye shut so as not to be "contaminated" with outside points of view.

"I don't deal with hypotheticals, I prefer to stick to reality. Feel free to meet up with your evo mates in imagination-land though, I won't hold anything against you."

So in other words you understood that it was a hypothetical and that I wasn't making a claim and are just arguing dishonestly. Well thanks, at least now I know the sort of person I'm dealing with.

"Never said that, only pointing out that you are new, and thus cannot hope to know all the people on this forum... So shouldn't be making a blanket statement about the people on this forum."

Care to criticize Calypsis4 for making negative generalizations about not just me but all non-believers?

"Sigh... Here come debate the dictonary...
http://dictionary.re...rowse/objective
http://dictionary.re...owse/subjective
ob·jec·tive
   /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
sub·jec·tive
   /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience."

Which matches perfectly with what I said:

"Something is objective if it exists outside of the human mind, ie an atom or a chair or the planet. It can be verified by others to exist."

You could've simply said "yes, that's correct" rather than copying and pasting half of the dictionary.

"And we come full circle, back to the "natural law" belief which in your point 1 you stated you never claimed... Oops. Nature holds no morals, Dawkins figured it out and I have quoted him, other evolutionists have figured it out too. Nature is indifferent, it has no good no evil no right no wrong, it is merely neutral."

Dawkins didn't say "morality holds no morals", he said that the universe acts as though it doesn't know or care that we're here. That in no way contradicts the concept that moral rules can be derived from facts about nature, and especially human nature. You yourself said grenades are bad because they hurt people. If human nature were different so that grenades were harmless, would they still be bad?

#83 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

Situational = Subjective... Since when one considers the situation then its becoming based on how you view that situation and your feelings towards it, therefore subjective. Therefore you're beliefs are clashing with each other.

If you feel that morality is not subjective then on what foundation is the objectivity?

What beliefs are clashing exactly? And many things are subjective and objective depending what you mean and how you look at it. Pain is a subjective sensation but that pain exists, that nerve endings and pain centers of the brain and suffering exist in nature is an objective fact that no sane person could dispute. So is suffering subjective or objective? Both, depending on whether you mean the sensation or the phenomenon. Morality is the same, no one doubts that morals and ethics and codes of conduct exist, nor does anyone doubt that the things on which people base moral philosophies exist, like suffering or death or charity etc. So whether "morality" is subjective depends on what you mean by "morality". If you mean a system of ethics then those objectively exist but are also subjective in several ways. If you mean moral impulses those are subjective in the sense that they vary (somewhat) from person to person but are an objective part of human nature just as much as foot or a liver is a part of us. Our moral (and immoral) impulses can be studied and observed just as readily as an organ.

As I said, I wouldn't say morality itself is strictly objective, but rather that the basis for my morality is objective. And that basis is human nature which to me makes something good or bad to begin with. Raping a person is bad because of who and what they are and how they feel and what they can experience - but if someone raped a rock or a tree? Who honestly cares. I'd feel more pity for the rapist.

And by the way before you come at me guns blazing as I'm sure you will, there is lots and lots of situational morality in the bible. Morality is not black and white or 1-dimensional, it often depends on the situation. Or do you think a cop shooting someone to save a hostage is equal to shooting a random innocent person in the head? If you've explored these questions at all or seriously discussed this before you can't honestly tell me morality is not at least sometimes situational.

#84 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:56 PM

No. We just say that whoever believes morality is subjective has no ground for accusing anybody of doing anything wrong. And we don't say atheist believe in God, but argue that the only logically coherent objective ground for morality is God.

How can you say that God is the objective ground for morality if He can determine what is morally good from one moment to the next. If morality is subject to the whims of God then morality is subjective.

But who said that a worldview needs to be logically coherent Posted Image

Logically coherent is in the eye of the beholder. Posted Image

#85 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:21 PM

And this is ridiculous. It's assuming with no logic that our moral sense comes from not just a god but the god of the bible, then projecting theism onto atheists and claiming that atheists are secret theists. Doesn't that strike you as a tad bit crazy? If I ever start arguing atheism by claiming that you're all secretly atheists and know I'm right please somebody shake me until I stop talking nonsense.


If you had read what me and Gilbo actually wrote instead of basing your comments on some sort of confused summary, you would know that we never said anything close to your claim above. Personally I have used one of C.S. Lewis classical argument for objective morality based on how people act. So your discussion above is just based on jonas5877s own fantasies.

"The basis of the old testament morality is God, didn't you know that? At least if you are to believe what the old testament actually says, instead of just assuming that it's all made up as you do. To know if the Bible is made up or not is something for another thread, so let's not get into that discussion." The ethics in the old testament like the golden rule were already in the culture for a long time at the time the texts were written. The bible was not their origin in that culture whether you like it or not.


Well of course not, God was the origins for morality not the Bible. In the Bible morality is traced back to the creation. The concept of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis 2:16-17. Ever heard of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

"But if you look in nature for moral guidance you will have some interesting moral dilemmas."
I didn't say I look to nature for moral guidance, I said that moral instincts (including pretty much all of ours) exist in nature to some degree. "Is it OK for a woman to kill and eat their lover after mating? Is it OK for a man to first chase away a man from a group of females and then kill all children that the females have and finally rape each of the female to produce their own offspring?"
This is intellectually dishonest, I already discussed how different species have different moral instincts, ie reptiles do not feel the need to care for their young. And as far as your examples you're saying that murdering your spouse, killing children the males and then having your way with the women is all clearly evil. I couldn't agree more. However...


How can it be intellectually dishonest to point out that nature can support any type of morality, even the things we call evil. You can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong. Animals don't seem to consider the moral consequences of their actions,they just act or react. People on the other hand is another matter.

Killing your spouse: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die;" - Deuteronomy 13:6-10


This describes the severity of breaking the 1st commandment according to the old covenant, and the punishment was the same even if the offender was your spouse.

Killing all the men and children and having your way with the women: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:7-8 (it's moses speaking btw) Why are you arguing against killing people and raping their sisters and daughters? It's commanded in the bible, which is supposedly your objective source of morality.


Where in the text does it say anything about raping anybody? For yourself is merely in contrast to for YHWH.

But actually I haven't even begun to argue for any specific moral law, I have just showed that objective moral values seems to exists and that nature can't explain objective moral values. That's all.

"Normally you don't hold animal responsible for the moral consequences of their actions. Why is that?" What, like make an animal jail? Do the words "wildly impractical" mean anything to you? I do not have the means to "fix" all of nature.


I'm just asking why you think people are morally responsible for their actions but not animals? Why do you think that?

#86 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:43 PM

"Well of course not, God was the origins for morality not the Bible. In the Bible morality is traced back to the creation. The concept of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis 2:16-17. Ever heard of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

Yes, but even if I were christian I would not think it was a literal tree. I know too much about science and nature that does not fit with a literal reading of genesis. For instance did every social species eat from the tree too? If not why do they exhibit moral tendencies?

"How can it be intellectually dishonest to point out that nature can support any type of morality, even the things we call evil. You can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong."

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that we have moral (and immoral) impulses, not that moral rules should be derived by observing animals in nature. I think moral truths stem from natural truths, and I do not think our impulses and instincts are anything close to infallible. They must be informed by our intellect and our senses, and honed by honest debate and discussion. For instance I doubt you would disagree that it's immoral for a woman to drink while pregnant (as it causes birth defects including being the leading cause of mental retardation). And I'm sure you would concede that a part of the moral instinct of most mothers is to protect their child. But until it was discovered by science that there was a correlation between drinking and birth defects, that instinct would not have prevented a mother from harming her child. Our instincts, useful and compelling as they are, are not omniscient or all-wise. They must be informed by science and reason to be effective.

"Animals don't seem to consider the moral consequences of their actions,they just act or react. People on the other hand is another matter."

Not as much as you might think. Punch someone in the face and see if they "just react" or if they're calm and cool and logical about it. When anger or s@x or pain are on the horizon, more often than not logic goes out the window.

"This describes the severity of breaking the 1st commandment according to the old covenant, and the punishment was the same even if the offender was your spouse."

Yup. But it's still killing your spouse (and for something that wouldn't get us a ticket in today's society).

"Where in the text does it say anything about raping anybody? For yourself is merely in contrast to for YHWH."

I know what you mean. Like in islam, where does it say they will have s@x with the 72 virgins. I mean having 72 virgins as a reward doesn't mean you'll have s@x with them, what an insane leap.

...are you kidding?

"But actually I haven't even begun to argue for any specific moral law, I have just showed that objective moral values seems to exists and that nature can't explain objective moral values. That's all."

So the fact that we're all the same species and have almost all of the same DNA, the same emotions, the same brain structures and the same social instincts isn't enough to explain why people tend to, more often than not, feel the same way about pain and death from one culture to the next? If I ask someone from the US if I can punch them in the face and they give the same answer as someone (when asked the same question) from ten other countries, there is no possible explanation for that than that the god of the bible must exist? Really?

"I'm just asking why you think people are morally responsible for their actions but not animals? Why do you think that?"

Really? It's the lesson of genesis - because we are self aware and unlike the animals understand what we're doing. You just said basically the same thing to me earlier in this response.

#87 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

1. And completely misunderstood what I was saying, despite the fact that I elaborated at length. Read up on the concept of natural law sometime:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Natural_law


2. No more than when you go on a diet it proves you don't have a compulsion to eat food. Having an instinct and universally obeying it are two different things. And it's worth mentioning that you're still arguing that animals don't have morals when you claim below you're not saying that.



3. I think a lion ripping apart a creature that's harmed no one is "evil", in the sense of being bad, causing suffering etc - I just have no means with which to avoid it.


4. Don't patronize me, I just explained to you why the properties of the universe are indifferent to our suffering and how we know they are. Some of the species that operate by those properties are another matter however. An atom has no desire to do or not do anything, a person does. How is this a controvertial statement?


5. You are either being dishonest or you just lack basic reading comprehension. I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. Asking someone for clarification of their position is not a logical fallacy.


6. Again, basic reading comprehension. When there's a question mark it's a question, not a statement.


7. What counter point did I not address?


8. Suffering and fear are intrinsically bad and it is our nature to want to avoid them. Intrinsically bad things are intrinsically bad, no other basis is required.

9. Do you need to be told hitting your thumb with a hammer isn't a good thing? Or can you figure it out on your own?


"Never said that, only pointing out that you are new, and thus cannot hope to know all the people on this forum... So shouldn't be making a blanket statement about the people on this forum."

10. Care to criticize Calypsis4 for making negative generalizations about not just me but all non-believers?

11. "Sigh... Here come debate the dictonary...
http://dictionary.re...rowse/objective
http://dictionary.re...owse/subjective
ob·jec·tive
   /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
sub·jec·tive
   /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience."

Which matches perfectly with what I said:

"Something is objective if it exists outside of the human mind, ie an atom or a chair or the planet. It can be verified by others to exist."



12. You could've simply said "yes, that's correct" rather than copying and pasting half of the dictionary.



13. Dawkins didn't say "morality holds no morals", he said that the universe acts as though it doesn't know or care that we're here. That in no way contradicts the concept that moral rules can be derived from facts about nature, and especially human nature. You yourself said grenades are bad because they hurt people. If human nature were different so that grenades were harmless, would they still be bad?


Sigh.....

1. Ok... You're officially confused.

From the link..

"Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law

This proves my point, this is subjective morality not objective...



2. You said

"No, no more than we're committing murder when we eat a steak. It does when it kills another lion though. Species have moral instincts against killing or harming their own kind, not against eating other animals. As someone pointed out once, even during a feeding frenzy pirahna never attack each other."- post #77

I replied

"Really? So when males kill each other over females this doesn't contradict your claim here...." - post#81


Read the bolded part then read my reply.... Additionally your statement about it being instinct is a subjective opinion ergo this is not objective, (anytime you try and rationalise a behaviour that is being subjective, which in turn undermine your position that nature is a source of objective morals)... However this is based on your false claim that nature can bring about objective moral judgements... Considering that nature is not sentient it has no capacity to do such.. in fact you admitted that nature is indifferent, thus neutral, meaning that it simply cannot construct objective moral worth / law.

3. Lol, you're just stating that as an attempt to support your idea. What you think is your own opinion and yes you are entitled to it, however its not evidence to go against what has already been established. Honestly my position here is in line with what the etablishment claims, if you wish to claim otherwise you're going to need some evidence.

4. How was I being patronising?
Dawkins clearly states that nature is indifferent, indifferent means no good and no evil, (Dawkins even says this) if there is no good and no evil then how can there be any form of morality? Seriously you just dodged past this, please address the point at hand.

5. Quote me, (as you asked before). I never stated what you were alluding to, if I did please quote me.

6. Its a red herring because it diverts away from what was being discussed, I've seen this happen a few times now, whenever you cannot reply to something you whinge and object to something either unrelated or only peripheral to the discussion.

7. The point was how I demonstrated how our comprehension of a hand grenade doesn't conform to your idea that nature gives us morals. I showed you where this doesn't fit yet you went on this tangent instead.

8. How do you know this will cause suffering (thus causing fear) unless you already know that a hand grendade is dangerous. Therefore recognising that such a thing is dangerous you use the moral justification murder is bad... How does nature proclaim that murder / bad things are actually bad? All you are doing is using your own justification and then claiming 'nature did it'

9. Such an action is associated by pain however this isn't merely about something that is painful or not painful we are discussing MORALS. Morally good and bad are totally different to good and bad. ie- a good move in chess isn't morally good. Therefore I think the root of the problems here is that you're confused on what morals actually are.

10. Am I a mod? Just pointing out that you cannot make blanket statements about the people on this forum UNTIL you know them, Calypsis I suspect has chatted with many an atheist so would have a good idea of what the majority believe.

11. You later said this,

"Morality is just as much an objective part of human (and animal) nature as sexuality or anger or anything else."

If you read the definitions you will see that something of human nature is subjective by definition... It doesn't suddenly become objective because you claim it is. Again your confusion here is the root of the problem. It also demonstrates that your paragraph was self refuting, first you claim that objectivity lies outside of the human mind, then you claim that its an objective part of human nature, as I said your beliefs are conflicting.


12. If you feel that two entries is half the dictonary then you're soon to have a very rude awakening

13. Where did I say that morality holds no morals, (you have it in quotation marks), since that is a self-refuting statement.

I am saying that if nature is indifferent, ie- no good no evil etc, (which you agreed to!!) then nature cannot be a foundation for morals since there is nothing to base morally good and bad on, since there is no good and bad in nature. Its a very simple point, I can't see how you can refuse to understand it.
  • Tirian likes this

#88 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

1. What beliefs are clashing exactly?

2. And many things are subjective and objective depending what you mean and how you look at it.

3. Pain is a subjective sensation but that pain exists, that nerve endings and pain centers of the brain and suffering exist in nature is an objective fact that no sane person could dispute. So is suffering subjective or objective? Both, depending on whether you mean the sensation or the phenomenon.

4. So whether "morality" is subjective depends on what you mean by "morality". If you mean a system of ethics then those objectively exist but are also subjective in several ways. If you mean moral impulses those are subjective in the sense that they vary (somewhat) from person to person but are an objective part of human nature just as much as foot or a liver is a part of us. Our moral (and immoral) impulses can be studied and observed just as readily as an organ.

5. As I said, I wouldn't say morality itself is strictly objective, but rather that the basis for my morality is objective. And that basis is human nature which to me makes something good or bad to begin with. Raping a person is bad because of who and what they are and how they feel and what they can experience - but if someone raped a rock or a tree? Who honestly cares. I'd feel more pity for the rapist.

6. And by the way before you come at me guns blazing as I'm sure you will, there is lots and lots of situational morality in the bible. Morality is not black and white or 1-dimensional, it often depends on the situation. Or do you think a cop shooting someone to save a hostage is equal to shooting a random innocent person in the head? If you've explored these questions at all or seriously discussed this before you can't honestly tell me morality is not at least sometimes situational.


1. You believe in objective moral values, you believe that being based on human nature is objective, however as per the definitions I provided you, human feelings = subjective therefore you believe in objective moral values that somehow stem from a subjective foundation... therefore contradiction.

2. Shakes head... First something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time, its like trying to claim something is locked and unlocked, they are mutually exclusive terms. Your belief that they can fit together only seeks to demonstrate the self-contradictory nature of your beliefs.

3. Aren't we discussing morals here? You're trying to fit pain within an individual is subjective, and suffering exists in the world... How do the two fit, they are separate things since they are pertaining to different localities, one is pain in an individual the other suffering in the world.

4. You're attempting to pull a spin, a subjective code of morals doesn't "objectively exist" just because you claim. Refer to the definitions I provided you, if something stems from the human mind / emotion / nature / values then that is subjective end of story.

5. Serious!.. Again you've demonstrated that you do not know what objective and subjective mean even after I provided a definition!!

Human nature = subjective by definition, no amount of mental gymnastics can change this, as I said go debate with the dictionary, since you clearly have a problem with the definition of words.

6. Yes you guessed correctly lol.

Was I discussing the Bible?

Yes some things are situational from a human perspective, that is why its called subjective morality, because its based on the human perspective which can differ from person to person, that is the entire point I've been trying to get across.

I can say that in my view murdering your family is a morally good thing, whereas I am sure you would disagree with that, however since as you claim morality is based on human nature, who are you to proclaim that your view that this act is wrong is more justified than mine since they are based on exactly the same thing.

Therefore there can be no laws, no society, no right no wrong.
  • Tirian likes this

#89 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

"Well of course not, God was the origins for morality not the Bible. In the Bible morality is traced back to the creation. The concept of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis 2:16-17. Ever heard of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"
Yes, but even if I were christian I would not think it was a literal tree. I know too much about science and nature that does not fit with a literal reading of genesis. For instance did every social species eat from the tree too? If not why do they exhibit moral tendencies?


It doesn't matter if you see the tree as a literal tree or not. According to the Bible Adam was at the creation of mankind given a choice to either learn about good and evil and die or live happily forever in paradise. So according to the Bible our knowledge of morality is not something that have evolved, but something that we learned about the hard way by going against Gods specific orders.

So no, animals have never learned about morality according to the Bible. And they still seem oblivious to the concept of morality. Or as you put it yourself : "It's the lesson of genesis - because we are self aware and unlike the animals understand what we're doing". We have learned to differ between good and evil, animals have not.

"How can it be intellectually dishonest to point out that nature can support any type of morality, even the things we call evil. You can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong."

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that we have moral (and immoral) impulses, not that moral rules should be derived by observing animals in nature. I think moral truths stem from natural truths, and I do not think our impulses and instincts are anything close to infallible. They must be informed by our intellect and our senses, and honed by honest debate and discussion. For instance I doubt you would disagree that it's immoral for a woman to drink while pregnant (as it causes birth defects including being the leading cause of mental retardation). And I'm sure you would concede that a part of the moral instinct of most mothers is to protect their child. But until it was discovered by science that there was a correlation between drinking and birth defects, that instinct would not have prevented a mother from harming her child. Our instincts, useful and compelling as they are, are not omniscient or all-wise. They must be informed by science and reason to be effective.


But on what grounds do you say that some impulses are moral while others are immoral? Without some objective moral ground to compare against it seems utterly futile to talk about moral/immoral impulses. Let's test your thesis through an example. If a p*dophile act according to his impulses how do you know from any natural truths that his impulse was moral or immoral?

And when did this reasoning you are talking about take place? Where is the historical proof that morality has evolved? Murder was considered immoral many thousand years ago, and are still considered immoral for example. Or has morality devolved and how would you even know if one particular moral standard is better or worse than any other standard without a notion of what is a better moral standard?

"Animals don't seem to consider the moral consequences of their actions,they just act or react. People on the other hand is another matter."
Not as much as you might think. Punch someone in the face and see if they "just react" or if they're calm and cool and logical about it. When anger or s@x or pain are on the horizon, more often than not logic goes out the window.


People might (willfully or not) sometimes act out of pure instinct without thinking about the moral consequences of their actions. But even if a person does that he is held morally responsible for his actions. A person who kills someone just because he hit him in his face is doing an immoral act, even if he acted out of instinct. For animals it's another story, they are not considered moral agents.

"This describes the severity of breaking the 1st commandment according to the old covenant, and the punishment was the same even if the offender was your spouse."

Yup. But it's still killing your spouse (and for something that wouldn't get us a ticket in today's society).


What do you think? What is the morally right thing to do?

Say that in some country murder (murder is just given as an example of a law) is always punished by death. In that country a spouse is murdering children. And she also tries to convince her husband to participate in the murders? Should the husband :

1 - Turn over the spouse to the authorities, knowing she will be killed for the murders?
2 - Join his spouse in killing more children?

"Where in the text does it say anything about raping anybody? For yourself is merely in contrast to for YHWH." I know what you mean. ... are you kidding?


It's obvious that you haven't actually read the text and that you don't know what I mean. The children of Israel initially took the women of Midian with their little ones captive, they did not kill them. But Mose ordered that all woman and male children should be killed, because of the incident of Peor. Then both the soldiers and the captives who where spared where to be purified for seven days outside the camp. And it was not part of Israeli purification ritual to rape female little ones. So according to the text it's hard to see that there where any raping going on. It is a difficult text, but a text from the old covenant when Israel was a Theocracy which is important to remember.

"But actually I haven't even begun to argue for any specific moral law, I have just showed that objective moral values seems to exists and that nature can't explain objective moral values. That's all."

So the fact that we're all the same species and have almost all of the same DNA, the same emotions, the same brain structures and the same social instincts isn't enough to explain why people tend to, more often than not, feel the same way about pain and death from one culture to the next? If I ask someone from the US if I can punch them in the face and they give the same answer as someone (when asked the same question) from ten other countries, there is no possible explanation for that than that the god of the bible must exist? Really?


Well that is not what I have argued. I have said that :

1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.
2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

And I have also said that you can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong.

So try to respond to that first, before getting to much into the Bible discussion.

#90 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

Well that is not what I have argued. I have said that :

1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.

And that is what people actually do. To some Christians, dancing is wrong. To G*ys, their h***sXuality is not wrong. When I was young, Baptists thought speaking in tongues was wrong but Assembly of God churches said it was right. There for ethics must be subjective.

2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.

Yes...sort of. People who think it is wrong to steal money from them, will have no problem defrauding the government, an insurance company, or a large business. So, they think it is wrong if it happens to them but not wrong if they do it to a non-personal entity like the taxpayers of the U.S. To me, that shows just how subjective morals are.

3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

Neither one of your premises support your conclusion. Perhaps you need to modify your premises or explain them better.



And I have also said that you can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong.

So try to respond to that first, before getting to much into the Bible discussion.

If nature is not the basis then it must be something that is not nature. Supernatural, perhaps? Are you saying that the objective moral values are supernatural? Is that why you can't name one irrefutable objective moral value...because you don't have insight into the supernatural?

If objective moral values must be of a supernatural basis, and no one knows the supernatural, how can anyone,claim that objective moral values even exist? You can't see the basis for them and you cannot even show one moral value that is objective.

#91 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:39 AM

"It doesn't matter if you see the tree as a literal tree or not. According to the Bible Adam was at the creation of mankind given a choice to either learn about good and evil and die or live happily forever in paradise. So according to the Bible our knowledge of morality is not something that have evolved, but something that we learned about the hard way by going against Gods specific orders."

Surely you've heard of people interpreting the tree in the garden symbolically rather than literally? How does seeing the story as an allegory not change anything? For instance, from my blog on xanga, here is an example of me describing how recent discoveries match up remarkably well with the genesis account if you take it less literally and more loosely:

http://agnophilo.xan...nd-eve-account/

Bear in mind it's written from a naturalist's perspective which takes natural history as a given so that might annoy you until you get to the biblical part, which as a fundamentalist will probably also annoy you. Sorry. I find it beautiful so I'm giving the link in the faint hope that you might see a little of that beauty too.

"So no, animals have never learned about morality according to the Bible."

According to your interpretation of the bible. I don't think genesis was meant as a science text.

"And they still seem oblivious to the concept of morality. Or as you put it yourself : "It's the lesson of genesis - because we are self aware and unlike the animals understand what we're doing". We have learned to differ between good and evil, animals have not."

Not quite what I meant. You asked me why we are morally responsible for our behavior as opposed to animals, and I said because we are self-aware. Setting aside that other species are self-aware to various degrees, moral philosophy and social instincts are two different types of "morality". If you strip away the accumulated garb of the last several thousand years of civilization and put people on an island with no police or laws or schools and let them operate not on acquired wisdom but on their base instincts, if one person attacks someone else what will happen? The other person might retaliate, others might intervene etc. What if they keep attacking people? The group will turn on them and retaliate and keep escalating until the violent individual mends their ways or dies.

It's exactly the same thing that happens in a pack of wolves when one goes crazy and starts attacking the others.

As I've said this is why psychologists can do experiments on lab rats and learn as much about us as they do about the rats. Most of our brains, our instincts, our moral impulses, our emotions etc are not unique to humans.

"But on what grounds do you say that some impulses are moral while others are immoral? Without some objective moral ground to compare against it seems utterly futile to talk about moral/immoral impulses."

The intrinsic consequences of following those impulses. Do you deny that things have intrinsic qualities?

"Let's test your thesis through an example. If a p*dophile act according to his impulses how do you know from any natural truths that his impulse was moral or immoral?"

The fact that it would do immeasurable harm to the kid isn't a natural truth or isn't valid in assessing whether to molest a child? And by the way I don't remember a passage about not molesting kids in the bible, and didn't people get married against their will and very young in the bible? So by your "objective moral standard" how do you know pedophilia is wrong?

"And when did this reasoning you are talking about take place? Where is the historical proof that morality has evolved?"

I said moral instincts, not morality in every sense, and the evidence is the fact that they exist throughout nature and the proof for common ancestry which I've provided to two different people who just refused to look at it and I'm not doing it a third time.

"Murder was considered immoral many thousand years ago, and are still considered immoral for example. Or has morality devolved and how would you even know if one particular moral standard is better or worse than any other standard without a notion of what is a better moral standard?"

I'm not sure I follow. How would morality have "devolved" from thinking murder is immoral and how would moral instincts having evolved necessitate they would reverse in a few thousand years (as if murder is somehow biologically useful now)?

"People might (willfully or not) sometimes act out of pure instinct without thinking about the moral consequences of their actions."

Most of the time they do imo.

"But even if a person does that he is held morally responsible for his actions. A person who kills someone just because he hit him in his face is doing an immoral act, even if he acted out of instinct. For animals it's another story, they are not considered moral agents."

To clarify I wasn't saying that something is moral because we have the instinct to do it or because that instinct exists in nature. When I say moral instinct I mean morality in the sense that it guides our behavior. I'm sorry if it's confusing.

"What do you think? What is the morally right thing to do?"

Not bash your wife's skull in for disagreeing with you.

"Say that in some country murder (murder is just given as an example of a law) is always punished by death. In that country a spouse is murdering children. And she also tries to convince her husband to participate in the murders? Should the husband :
1 - Turn over the spouse to the authorities, knowing she will be killed for the murders?
2 - Join his spouse in killing more children?"

Obviously don't murder people. But to clarify I don't think something's wrong because society thinks so, I think it's bad because of what it intrinsically is. Setting someone on fire is intrinsically bad on many levels, it causes pain and fear which is bad, it's probably not good for society in many ways, and on a basic level it's just destructive.

"It's obvious that you haven't actually read the text and that you don't know what I mean."

You mis-quoted me, I was being sarcastic. You cut the bit out where I made my point and ignored it.

"The children of Israel initially took the women of Midian with their little ones captive, they did not kill them. But Mose ordered that all woman and male children should be killed, because of the incident of Peor. Then both the soldiers and the captives who where spared where to be purified for seven days outside the camp. And it was not part of Israeli purification ritual to rape female little ones. So according to the text it's hard to see that there where any raping going on."

So the virgins specifically are to taken for as spoils of war, but not the non-virgins and this has nothing to do with s@x? Here's another passage:

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2)

It's not called "rape and pillage" for nothing. Rape has been a part of war for thousands of years, you can't dehumanize a people to the point of justifying murdering them by the thousands and then expect men to be chivalrous toward them the second the battle's over.

"It is a difficult text,"

This is code for "I don't like it any more than you do but I'm not allowed to explicitly disagree with it".

"but a text from the old covenant when Israel was a Theocracy which is important to remember."

It's either the justifiably barbaric rules of a backwards theocracy or the objective basis of all morality, divinely inspired and infallible. You can't have it both ways.

"Well that is not what I have argued."

Yeah it is, you just said it. That there's no objective, natural basis for explaining common moral values. The fact that we're all based on the same DNA which makes our brains generally work the same way is a very plausible natural explanation.

"I have said that :
1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.
2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective."

I don't follow your logic here, it sounds like you should've ended with "therefore human morals are subjective and we need the bible for objective morality" but said number 3 instead.

By the way you might enjoy this video as food for thought:



"And I have also said that you can't use nature as the basis for objective moral values, since you have to subjectively choose which behaviors from which animals you should consider morally right or morally wrong."

I'm not saying we should copy moral behaviors in nature or that something is moral because we have the urge to do it, but that things are intrinsically good or bad because of their intrinsic nature and consequences. In other words if I see a beautiful woman and some part of my brain wants to just run up and kiss her, I suppress that instinct because I know how it will make her feel. I don't suppress that instinct because there's some rule somewhere in a book about kissing. Some people do base their lives on rules or authority figures or peer pressure, I try to understand why things are really good or bad. And if there were a god and he appeared at that exact moment and said "go kiss this woman you don't know and make her think you're a stalker and frighten her and ruin her day", I still would not do it because I don't think something would be right because a god said so, I would hope rather that a god would say to do something because that god has the wisdom to tell right from wrong.

Another way of putting it is if god said the earth is round it would not be round because he said it was round, it would be round because it is and it would be just as round if he said it was flat. But hopefully if there were such a being that being wouldn't lie to us or it's communications wouldn't be garbled by poor translations and interpretations so that we end up with a falsehood.

"So try to respond to that first, before getting to much into the Bible discussion."

I replied to everything, though perhaps not in the order you wished. Sorry.

#92 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:21 AM

1. You believe in objective moral values, you believe that being based on human nature is objective, however as per the definitions I provided you, human feelings = subjective therefore you believe in objective moral values that somehow stem from a subjective foundation... therefore contradiction.

2. Shakes head... First something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time, its like trying to claim something is locked and unlocked, they are mutually exclusive terms. Your belief that they can fit together only seeks to demonstrate the self-contradictory nature of your beliefs.

3. Aren't we discussing morals here? You're trying to fit pain within an individual is subjective, and suffering exists in the world... How do the two fit, they are separate things since they are pertaining to different localities, one is pain in an individual the other suffering in the world.

4. You're attempting to pull a spin, a subjective code of morals doesn't "objectively exist" just because you claim. Refer to the definitions I provided you, if something stems from the human mind / emotion / nature / values then that is subjective end of story.

5. Serious!.. Again you've demonstrated that you do not know what objective and subjective mean even after I provided a definition!!

Human nature = subjective by definition, no amount of mental gymnastics can change this, as I said go debate with the dictionary, since you clearly have a problem with the definition of words.

6. Yes you guessed correctly lol.

Was I discussing the Bible?

Yes some things are situational from a human perspective, that is why its called subjective morality, because its based on the human perspective which can differ from person to person, that is the entire point I've been trying to get across.

I can say that in my view murdering your family is a morally good thing, whereas I am sure you would disagree with that, however since as you claim morality is based on human nature, who are you to proclaim that your view that this act is wrong is more justified than mine since they are based on exactly the same thing.

Therefore there can be no laws, no society, no right no wrong.



#93 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

I don't think genesis was meant as a science text.


Neither do ANY of the creationist here think that, and I am pretty sure that I can speak for all of them in this matter! Just clobber me guys if you disagree... Posted Image

Creationists believe that the Bible is a book of truth. That might sound like a book of science, but it is not and I am going to explain to you what the difference is.

Science only deals with things that are observable, repeatable and testable.

Does that mean that science is truth? No. Truth is actually greater than science, because truth has no dependencies on how things are tested and observed, whereas science is only a tool that we use in our efforts to determine truth.

The "truth" of the matter is that something can be observable, reapeatable and testable and yet not be true.

Something can also be unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable and yet be true.

Science is what it is. It is not perfect or infallible. It is good within the context that it is used, just as a cane is good for someone who is blind.
  • Tirian likes this

#94 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

The "truth" of the matter is that something can be observable, reapeatable and testable and yet not be true.

Would you agree that something that can be observed, repeated and tested is more likely to be true than not?

Something can also be unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable and yet be true.

This statement may be correct but you cannot have any confidence if that unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable thing is true or not.

If no amount of testing can increase our confidence that something is true then we have no way of understanding anything. Well, I guess we can close the schools now.

#95 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:10 PM

Neither do ANY of the creationist here think that, and I am pretty sure that I can speak for all of them in this matter! Just clobber me guys if you disagree... Posted Image

Creationists believe that the Bible is a book of truth. That might sound like a book of science, but it is not and I am going to explain to you what the difference is.

Science only deals with things that are observable, repeatable and testable.

Does that mean that science is truth? No. Truth is actually greater than science, because truth has no dependencies on how things are tested and observed, whereas science is only a tool that we use in our efforts to determine truth.

The "truth" of the matter is that something can be observable, reapeatable and testable and yet not be true.

Something can also be unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable and yet be true.

Science is what it is. It is not perfect or infallible. It is good within the context that it is used, just as a cane is good for someone who is blind.

I actually agree, though I do not think the bible is a source of "truth" any more than science or observation is, even if it were written by a god who intended everything to be 100% accurate much of it requires translation and interpretation and is therefore effectively going to be (even ideally) as imperfect as science, our senses etc. Of course I don't believe the bible is of supernatural origin so I don't think it's even inerrant in principle, but if I were christian I would still be humble about how I interpreted it and not assume what I think the bible means necessarily trumps science.

People used to interpret the bible as saying the sun went around the earth once too.

#96 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:12 PM

Would you agree that something that can be observed, repeated and tested is more likely to be true than not?


This statement may be correct but you cannot have any confidence if that unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable thing is true or not.

If no amount of testing can increase our confidence that something is true then we have no way of understanding anything. Well, I guess we can close the schools now.

Haha. Okay you're both right. You are right in an absolute sense, he is right in a logical sense.

When we use words like "fact" it is only ever to refer to things which can be verified to a high degree of probability. Nothing is 100%. Not in science, not in religion, not even what we see with our own eyes.

#97 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:14 PM

Would you agree that something that can be observed, repeated and tested is more likely to be true than not?


This statement may be correct but you cannot have any confidence if that unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable thing is true or not.

If no amount of testing can increase our confidence that something is true then we have no way of understanding anything. Well, I guess we can close the schools now.


Jonas, you are totally missunderstanding my point. I am merely pointing out the difference between truth and science and the fact that creationists see the Bible as a book of truth, rather than science.

Having said that, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that things observed, repeated and tested are more likely to be true than not. And how you managed to read "no amount of testing can increase our confidence" into my post is beyond me.

We believe the Bible is truthful in what it says. That does not mean that we "throw science out the door", but rather, we do what we can to see that if we are to allow something to remain "in the door" then must truly hold up to scientific scrutiny.

#98 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

I actually agree, though I do not think the bible is a source of "truth" any more than science or observation is, even if it were written by a god who intended everything to be 100% accurate much of it requires translation and interpretation and is therefore effectively going to be (even ideally) as imperfect as science, our senses etc. Of course I don't believe the bible is of supernatural origin so I don't think it's even inerrant in principle, but if I were christian I would still be humble about how I interpreted it and not assume what I think the bible means necessarily trumps science.

People used to interpret the bible as saying the sun went around the earth once too.


Sure, I have no problem with that.

#99 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:36 PM

Sure, I have no problem with that.

Hooray : )

That is I think the first time I have so far actually had somebody on this forum agree with something that is a fundamental part of how I approach reality.

#100 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

Will you reply to my post #87 and #88 or are you doing the exact thing you accuse creationists and running away from evidence / rebuttals.... (Hypocrite much?)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users