Jump to content
Hanging up the hat Read more... ×
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Goku

Morality Under God Or Atheism

Recommended Posts

On 5/25/2020 at 5:50 PM, mike the wiz said:

A dog won't stop to ask permission to take a steak off your plate. Nor will a cat. Neither are they on a laptop. Sure, they don't have fingers but there is no capacity within them either to ever understand these things. 

I am not trying to weaken your argument but maybe you would want to strengthen it. I believe I have seen a dog that will not take steak or any food unless it's owner gives it permission to take it. If the owner says wait, it will wait until it gets permission.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 8:27 AM, Goku said:

One, humans are animals.

I suppose it depends on how you define the term. We do have similarities to animals, especially the higher ones. But the question is are we ONLY animals. You say yes and I say no. And neither of us can prove it one way or the other in an absolute way. If God has not revealed his will to us, then I have no basis to say we are not only animals. The only way I know that I have a soul or that I may possibly live beyond this life is because it has been revealed from a reliable source.

So what's your answer to my question, Goku? Is it true that with all of the efforts made here, you have not moved even one digit (in 10) away from your conversion to atheism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, indydave said:

 And when the owner looked into my complaint about you, he shot down your criticism of me.

I believe this is a deliberate breaking of rule 13 and nothing more than an attempt to "carry on" the fighting when the dust has long settled.

You saw what I said to Perpetual Student, that you were one I mentioned that was "mature" enough to take your slap on the wrist and modify behaviour within rules and carry on. I included you in that because of my dumb, "be the bigger person" attitude, and I was willing to leave that whole situation alone at that point since people had went on with discussing the tread.

But now you have carried this on like a dog with a bone even though it is now long dead.

Nobody "shot down" my, "criticism" of you the person obeyed my private request of him.

YOU DID personally attack people which is why several people reported your posts. .

Even after no official warnings against you which was basically UNFAIR LENIENCY in your favour, because you are a long-term member, and even after me walking away from this by not even continuing to argue despite your fallacy of false equivalence with the personal attack on me of, "hypocrite",  you still push and push and push and push and push for a fight.

You now have an official warning for PERSISTING, in an UNPROVOKED way, to push for a fight with the moderators.

TIME TO FINALLY JUST LET GO OF IT AND GO BACK TO JUST DEBATING THE TOPICS WITHIN THE RULES. No more comments on my actions as moderator, break rule 13 again and I take it to Fred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, indydave said:

I am not trying to weaken your argument but maybe you would want to strengthen it. I believe I have seen a dog that will not take steak or any food unless it's owner gives it permission to take it. If the owner says wait, it will wait until it gets permission.

With a dog that won't take a steak, it doesn't do that for moral reasons comparable to humans anyway which would be an example of inferring anthropomorphism based on denying the antecedent. Like when my animal-obsessed sister thought a duck was hugging a human being but I noted it was actually taking the position which offered the most relaxation of it's muscles in all likelihood. So attributing the actions of animals because of rudimentary similarities, to humans is naive.

Also formally speaking your example would be this;

- If a dog will just take food off a plate it's because it doesn't have human understanding/morality. (my argument, which is a truism, IMHO)

- A dog didn't just take food off of a plate therefore it does have human understanding/morality. (FALLACIOUS)

So you IMPLY the denial of the antecedent as having veracity.

That's wrong because while animal-actions do show why they are not humans, actions that SEEM similar to human actions don't allow for the conclusion that it's because they're equivalent to humans

Conclusion: There is no comparison where on the whole an animal can NOT be shown to be on the same level as a human. It's not the individual things as such in isolation but all of them together; spirituality, music, art, science, logic, mathematics, a persona, language.

(disclaimer; for example I am not saying with, "language", that animals can't communicate, but comparing their communication with written language would be again fallacious because the example is not truly equal in sophistication and counts as a fallacy of false equivalence.)

It goes without saying humans stand out as different in THE LEVEL we are at, because we are the only ones on that level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, indydave said:

I suppose it depends on how you define the term. We do have similarities to animals, especially the higher ones. But the question is are we ONLY animals. You say yes and I say no. And neither of us can prove it one way or the other in an absolute way. If God has not revealed his will to us, then I have no basis to say we are not only animals

I believe this is wrong. It follows that we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to prove logically we are more than animals. It is also logically ABSURD to believe the atheist claim is EQUAL. It would be equal if humans were just the same as animals so let's do a TEST.

The very fact we ask it proves we are more than animals, and the very fact we can write the question down on computers proves we are more than animals.

"IF we are just animals, then we can be compared to any other animal and you will basically see the same things." (reductio)

EXAMPLES:

1. We take a cat species. We compare it to all four legged organisms, and basically we just observe the SAME animal activities. There are some different behaviours but it's all the same, "animal survival" type thing. Basically we can take any other species of cat and compare it to other cats and ultimately you see the same results.

2. We take an ape. We compare it to all other arboreal organisms, monkeys and apes. It basically behaves as the same apes, basically we see some minor differences but it's just animal survival. If we instead of the chimp take an orangutan, we will still basically see the same result if we replace any species of ape with our test subject.

This simply can't be done with a human, you couldn't replace a chimp with an oranguatan and then replace that with a human because you wouldn't get the same result with humans. The differences in terms of music, maths, art, science, logic, spirituality, written language, aren't really comparable, but with the chimp you can compare anything it does with the orangutan.

CONCLUSION: Deductive reason shows that humans clearly are not on the same level. There is something fundamentally different, we are sentient personas. No other animal is a sentient persona, you couldn't replace us with another ape and get the same results but you get the same results for all apes. You get the same results for all cats, all dogs, all bears, etc, etc.......

Technically you could argue, "this may simply be what you get with an incredibly advanced animal", but the term, "advanced" would just be an epithet, because according to evolution everything is advanced, there is no reason to believe only one species would be advanced to such an extremely different level on all levels unless we are made in God's image. The bible says we would be basically in charge of the planet, that was a prediction for the human kind, which is true, and it is not true of any animals. There isn't even a close runner up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

I believe this is wrong. It follows that we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to prove logically we are more than animals. It is also logically ABSURD to believe the atheist claim is EQUAL. It would be equal if humans were just the same as animals so let's do a TEST.

Membership in a category doesn't imply equivalence with every other member of the category, it only implies the presence of the defining characteristics of that category.  None of your tests seem to address any of those actual defining characteristics of animals, you're just picking out ways that humans can be distinguished from other animals.

8 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

CONCLUSION: Deductive reason shows that humans clearly are not on the same level. There is something fundamentally different, we are sentient personas. No other animal is a sentient persona, you couldn't replace us with another ape and get the same results but you get the same results for all apes. You get the same results for all cats, all dogs, all bears, etc, etc.......

I can't replace my fridge with my stove, but they both remain appliances.

8 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Technically you could argue, "this may simply be what you get with an incredibly advanced animal", but the term, "advanced" would just be an epithet, because according to evolution everything is advanced, there is no reason to believe only one species would be advanced to such an extremely different level on all levels unless we are made in God's image. The bible says we would be basically in charge of the planet, that was a prediction for the human kind, which is true, and it is not true of any animals. There isn't even a close runner up.

If we think of things in terms of a single scale of least to most advanced (this isn't really a sensible concept when applied to all of life but it works well enough for now), something has to be the highest on that scale, and whatever threshold you set for advancement, something had to be the first across it.  The existence of humans doesn't imply there must be something else as intelligent as us, in the same way that the existence of the blue whale doesn't imply that there must be something else as large, or the cheetah something else as fast, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, indydave said:

 Nah...a high priest does not have the ultimate power from on high. A steward is not the landowner.

Fair enough.

Quote

I do want to tip my hat that he defended me (or maybe himself...PS was writing in reply to me but he may have had someone besides me in mind) against the charge made by Perpetual. He didn't have to do that, so I appreciate that.

Quote

So what's your answer to my question, Goku? Is it true that with all of the efforts made here, you have not moved even one digit (in 10) away from your conversion to atheism? 

I don't want to overstep my bounds, and I can't read minds, but as a nonbeliever I think I have an idea of where he is coming from. After engaging Christians for years as a nonbeliever I have noticed that some Christians have moved me further away from Christianity, and so I don't think Perpetual was trolling or lying, and he said it in such a general and level-headed way I don't think he meant it as any kind of personal attack nor did he mention any names.

As for my time here on EFF, overall, I'd say that no one has moved me 10% closer to theism (one digit), or even 5%. If it's any consolation I don't expect any Christian I interact with to change beliefs, nor do I even try.

Quote

I suppose it depends on how you define the term. We do have similarities to animals, especially the higher ones. But the question is are we ONLY animals. You say yes and I say no. And neither of us can prove it one way or the other in an absolute way. If God has not revealed his will to us, then I have no basis to say we are not only animals. The only way I know that I have a soul or that I may possibly live beyond this life is because it has been revealed from a reliable source.

I'm defining it the way science does: a multicellular eukaryote that is motile and consumes other living matter for energy (heterotroph).

Quote

He asked me to answer for him, and I've knocked on YOUR door for years. But he gave me strict instructions that there should be a limit to the knocking... as I'm sure you know (regarding pearls.)

Don't you think it is a little strange that an omniscient, omnipotent being that wants to have a relationship with me refuses to answer my knocking, but years later tells a random person I met online to speak on his behalf with the ultimatum to not take too long or he goes away?

Why is it so hard for this omni-being to directly talk to people in a way concordant with having a normal, sane, rational melon in his head? Why does he act like a 10 year old so shy he has to have his buddies pass a note?

It just doesn't add up for me. I like to think I have an open mind, and so if God wants to come down on my level and speak to me the way he created me, as a more or less normal human being, I'm all ears. I don't think that is an unreasonable request or expectation given what he is capable of and how much he apparently wants to be my friend; as I said earlier I knocked on his door and the ball is in his court. But this, 'accept weird forms of communication or I'll delete your phone number', is honestly a bit stupid. It's almost as if he doesn't exist.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect has intended me to forgo their use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 8:59 PM, popoi said:

I can't replace my fridge with my stove, but they both remain appliances

The category is too broad. I think if you look again I was saying that all "apes", as in particular types of primate, are ultimately the same thing. But, "appliances" would be a broader category. 

What I was saying was, ultimately all apes are the same. Chimps, orangutans, gorillas, they ultimately are the same things as each other, but not a human. You can't compare a human to anything else. Heck that's just a truism. Sure, if you want to argue, "that's because we're advanced" that's at least understandable, but to deny it? Pointless.

To expand on this, it should be noted I wasn't talking about anatomy. You can have for example, cats, dogs, primates, all very different anatomically, but not very different in terms of the basic animal behaviours we see, the usual instinctual stuff of survive, get energy to and replicate. 

That's why if you take a cat or a dog or an ape or a bear, it really wouldn't matter they're ONLY animals.

Humans are animals but they are NOT ONLY animals.

Why? Because of the obvious facts of our sentience, our persona. I would have no problem admitting this even if I was an atheist it should be noted, because it is simply true that humans are different to all the animals in this way, that we aren't merely animals acting on instinct but we show we are far beyond that animal-level. 

In the following picture, which one is unique? You see if you say, "all are different but so it isn't one that is unique", then that's equivocation because we all know only one differs in a particularly relevant way. The change of colour is the ordinary difference between all, but one is different for a special reason;

unique.jpg

So then, "colour" as a category could be regarded as, "animal". So yes, the triangle has colour and can be under, "animal", but the triangle represents, "sentient persona" which would incorporate all the unique traits of humanity, such as language, writing, creative abilities, knowledge of morality, science, maths, logic, music, art. 

Ergo you CAN be an animal (instinct, mate, survive, get food)and also be a sentient persona, therefore logically you can NOT say, "here is how people are the same as animals therefore people are the same and just animals".

Animals reproduce, get food, survive, have instinct, have differing anatomies

Humans reproduce, get food, etc...has a different anatomy

ergo humans are the same as animals

That's a type of fallacy of the undistributed middle term based on cherry-picking the similarities and ignoring or PLAYING DOWN the differences. 

Conclusion: Its that unbelievers IGNORE the qualitative differences between a human and an animal, and they play up the similarities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is locked because Perpetual Student and IndyDave have tried to turn it into an, "attack mike the wiz" thread. (which you now won't see because I have deleted their posts. Both were warned to not create any more attacks and stick to the topic and both have proven they can't act like adults.)

Their pointless ad-hominem posts have been deleted. Perpetual Student (Driewerf?) has been banned.

When the thread re-opens it will be about the topic SOLELY

Fred has chosen me as moderator, and I will do that job in tune with his rules, and he has stated to me that thus far he is pleased with how I have done that job. If you have an issue, take it up with him. Otherwise indyDave, learn when to simply obey, because treating me like I am not a moderator isn't going to mean I am not one and isn't going to mean you are an exception to the rules and can do whatever you want simply because you are combative/belligerent .

Everyone else can accept it, but it would seem you and Perpetual Student can't. Gee let me see, is it only a coincidence that you two posters can't handle me as moderator because of your consistent breaking of the rules? I guess that's what it must be, pure coincidence. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

Our Terms