Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Why must it be just one or the other?

    Jim
    meaning what?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      meaning what?
      Reading comprehension.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Well you asked
        So, “sodomy” is bad because your imaginary deity says so. Right!

        That is why in your world rape is perfectly natural, as would be pedophilia or any other deviant behavior.
        Rape was “natural” in Moses’ world too but we’ve moved on from the primitive values of your tribal deity. “Natural” does not necessarily equate to acceptable behaviour.

        Your claim, which is obviously false, was that rape would undermine social cohesion.
        Yes dummy, in human society, not necessarily in that of our fellow primates.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          We disagree on how we have morals, but we agree on the goal of morality. The betterment of people to a standard of "good"

          It is doing what you ought to do, to be a better person.

          and no, it is not backwards. It takes individuals, acting in a moral manner to make a better society. Without morals, you would not even have a society. You would just have chaos. Society cannot act, only individuals can. So a group of individuals, acting in ways to show care and love for one another and helping each other, can build a society.
          Morals are simply rules of behaviour and as a social species we are genetically predisposed to adhere to the societal rules of the community. It’s not so much about being “good” (whatever that means), but the awareness of and response to the social rules of the group. And these have changed over the eons, e.g. the barbarous “us v them” morality of Moses time compared to the concept of universal human rights we have today.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            So, “sodomy” is bad because your imaginary deity says so. Right!
            Right! Just as rape is bad for the same reason.


            Rape was “natural” in Moses’ world too but we’ve moved on from the primitive values of your tribal deity. “Natural” does not necessarily equate to acceptable behaviour.
            But rape is still natural. And how can we move away from what is natural? To something unnatural?

            Yes dummy, in human society, not necessarily in that of our fellow primates.
            But you have zero evidence that rape would undermine social cohesion, so you have no rational argument against rape. Except that the idea gives you a bad feeling in your tummy... And the fact that when we speak of things like homosexuality you like to point back to our primate cousins claiming that it is a natural behavior.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Right! Just as rape is bad for the same reason.
              Imaginary deities are best ignored, especially when they reflect the values the tribal nomads who invented them, e.g. re sodomy.

              But rape is still natural. And how can we move away from what is natural? To something unnatural?
              What is “natural” is the prime imperative of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

              But you have zero evidence that rape would undermine social cohesion, so you have no rational argument against rape. Except that the idea gives you a bad feeling in your tummy... And the fact that when we speak of things like homosexuality you like to point back to our primate cousins claiming that it is a natural behavior.
              ALL anti-social behaviour undermines the social values to preserve social cohesion and is therefore proscribed.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                meaning what?
                Why must morality be either God revealed or naturally evolved? Why can't it be both?

                This is the common false dichotomy of atheism. That the world must be split into two parts, the natural and the supernatural, and there can be no overlap of the two. That either God makes lightening, or electricity makes lightening. That the Bible is some sort of magic book or it's only a book written by men. That God created the Earth out of nothing in 6 days 6000 years ago, or the world is just an accident.

                That Jesus is either just a man or only God.

                But Jesus was fully man and fully God. The revelation of the incarnation is that God became one of us. That you can't say that because one knows Jesus' parents and the town He was born in that it means He is not also the Messiah, God in the Flesh, the Redeemer of mankind. That because He was born to a Virgin in a Stable he could not be the coming Heavenly King.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Why must morality be either God revealed or naturally evolved? Why can't it be both?
                  Depends on what you mean by naturally evolved. A God revealed morality would be 100% complete right from the very beginning, the only thing that would change is the context it was applied in. The only way one could possibly talk about "natural evolution" in such a world would be that our understanding could "evolve" when it comes to that revealed morality, i.e a deeper understanding of it. But the moral facts and universals themselves would always stay the same.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Imaginary deities are best ignored, especially when they reflect the values the tribal nomads who invented them, e.g. re sodomy.
                    And like I have shown, apart from God you would have no rational argument against things like rape, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity.

                    What is “natural” is the prime imperative of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

                    ALL anti-social behaviour undermines the social values to preserve social cohesion and is therefore proscribed.
                    But you have no actual evidence that rape would significantly undermine social cohesion, just the opposite, our nearest primate cousins rape all the time and they remain cohesive. Heck, liberals in this country probably cause more of a problem with cohesion. Yet you like that.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Why must morality be either God revealed or naturally evolved? Why can't it be both?

                      Jim
                      I believe that is probably both. That through the evolutionary process we can discover what is good and evil, perhaps that is one way that God "writes his law on our heart" as Paul says. And when we listen to the "better angels of our nature" we are conforming to God's eternal and universal law. Yet the atheist will often point to animal behavior to justify certain inclinations and desires - like homosexuality.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Depends on what you mean by naturally evolved. A God revealed morality would be 100% complete right from the very beginning, the only thing that would change is the context it was applied in. The only way one could possibly talk about "natural evolution" in such a world would be that our understanding could "evolve" when it comes to that revealed morality, i.e a deeper understanding of it. But the moral facts and universals themselves would always stay the same.
                        Perhaps. But keep in mind that the morality of the old testament - the Law - becomes fulfilled in the NT through Christ, and it is superseded by the new Covenant. What was moral as regards what food to eat changed dramatically after Christ came. So the possibility remains that certain elements of God's commands to us are not necessarily the absolute kinds of for all time moral commands that many assume them to be. Further, as you state, there is always the issue of our (mis) understanding or (mis) application, which Jesus called out as the Pharisees continually tried to trip Him up as he took steps to challenge their interpretation of the Law. The disciples struggled with this as they tried to understand how much of the moral Law should apply to the Gentiles, end the end they came to present only a very reduced set of moral requirements to them.

                        In the end Jesus told us that all the law and the prophets is summed up in "Love the Lord you God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." Which is often a very far cry from what we often end up doing as we try to 'follow God's law'. For example, while I can agree that as best I can tell the scriptures define homosexual actions as sin, many times what we end up doing and saying to people that find themselves dealing with homosexuality completely violates Jesus' quote above. So if by following the scriptures we violate what Jesus says sums up all the law and the prophets, we've missed something MAJOR somewhere.

                        And this particular issue is especially difficult. Because the more we learn about this, the clearer it becomes that at least a significant part of sexual orientation is hereditary, not environmental or behavioral. This presents us with a significant challenge in terms of heeding the rather large conflict that presents in terms of honoring what Jesus says are the two most important commandments. If sexual orientation is hereditary, then it becomes most difficult for the homosexual person to follow Christ - not that to follow Christ is guaranteed to be easy. On the contrary, following Christ is in fact a death sentence in many parts of the world. Nevertheless, the issues here are not simple, and the typical approach of condemnation, arrogance and self-righteousness is way off the mark.

                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          And this particular issue is especially difficult. Because the more we learn about this, the clearer it becomes that at least a significant part of sexual orientation is hereditary, not environmental or behavioral. This presents us with a significant challenge in terms of heeding the rather large conflict that presents in terms of honoring what Jesus says are the two most important commandments. If sexual orientation is hereditary, then it becomes most difficult for the homosexual person to follow Christ - not that to follow Christ is guaranteed to be easy.
                          Jim
                          Jim, I suspect that all sinful tendencies are in large part hereditary. And it is difficult for any sinner to follow Christ.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            So the possibility remains that certain elements of God's commands to us are not necessarily the absolute kinds of for all time moral commands that many assume them to be. Further, as you state, there is always the issue of our (mis) understanding or (mis) application, which Jesus called out as the Pharisees continually tried to trip Him up as he took steps to challenge their interpretation of the Law. The disciples struggled with this as they tried to understand how much of the moral Law should apply to the Gentiles, end the end they came to present only a very reduced set of moral requirements to them.
                            It seems also relevant that Jesus said the divorce laws were given by God as a concession to human nature. So biblical law can be pragmatic rather than timelessly absolute. Not to mention that Paul notes in his discussions of marriage (1 Cor 7) that celibacy is his preferred option for people and marriage is a concession to human nature and human passions. Jesus likewise says (Mat 22:30) that there will be no marriage in heaven.

                            It seems that sexual relationships / marriages are dealt with as earthly things that involve pragmatic concessions to human nature, rather than being immutable and absolute reflections of a heavenly ideal.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And like I have shown, apart from God you would have no rational argument against things like rape, bestiality, adultery, promiscuity.
                              Morality is not about keeping an imaginary deity happy, it’s about ensuring the survival of the species via awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

                              But you have no actual evidence that rape would significantly undermine social cohesion,
                              Any initiation of coercion or violence against another person demonstrably damages the social fabric of the group.

                              just the opposite, our nearest primate cousins rape all the time and they remain cohesive.
                              Undoubtedly our primitive ancestors did too but overall modern man no longer holds to such values.

                              Heck, liberals in this country probably cause more of a problem with cohesion. Yet you like that.
                              ...as opposed to Evangelicals demanding their own way in the name of their god, you mean.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                Why must morality be either God revealed or naturally evolved? Why can't it be both?

                                This is the common false dichotomy of atheism. That the world must be split into two parts, the natural and the supernatural, and there can be no overlap of the two.
                                Er, Jim, from an atheistic pov morality cannot be both god-revealed and naturally-evolved because it cannot be god-revealed at all; there is no god to reveal morality.

                                This isn't a false dichotomy. It's not that there can be no overlap, it's that there is nothing to overlap with.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X