PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 3:13 PM on May 3, 2006 :
Now, after going back and forth on this for about a dozen posts, let's hear what point you were trying to make.



according to the theory of evolution, man is no more than an evolved animal.  therefore, what is morally acceptable to do to an animal is also morally acceptable to do to a person.  you said,

"Mosquitoes... I slap them all the time. They cause me pain, they leave welts of swollen skin and bl'ood on my body, and they're in no danger of going extinct. That's enough reason for me to slap them."

"Tests, I did indeed fail to take into account. I would add that into a list of occassions in which I believe it is acceptable to kil animals--but only if the tests go toward research and are not some mashochistic game."

so its alright to kil animals when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but its not alright to kil animals for sport or when they are in danger of going extinct.  the ToE binds you to say the same thing for people, that its alright to kil people when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but not for sport or when they’re in danger of going extinct.


 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 09:39 AM on May 10, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 09:39 AM on May 10, 2006 :
according to the theory of evolution, man is no more than an evolved animal.  


This is not correct.  

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as being derived from earlier forms via a complex set of processes related to imperfect replication during reproduction.

The bolded part of your quote is your philosophy, not the Theory of Evolution.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:19 AM on May 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so its alright to kil animals when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but its not alright to kil animals for sport or when they are in danger of going extinct.  the ToE binds you to say the same thing for people, that its alright to kil people when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but not for sport or when they’re in danger of going extinct.


The ToE binds me to nothing, first of all, because it's a scientific theory, not a moral stance.

Fundamentally, though, I agree that taken from a naturalistic viewpoint, there is nothing "wrong" with killing human beings for the same reason that I think it's acceptable to kill animals.

Why don't I do it, then? Because our society has changed by itself, and over the ages of man's existence, we have discovered that mass, random slaughter contributes to anarchy, and does not promote a stable government. The government provides for the people who live in it, so it's only natural to want that government to stay in tact. Using that information, we can come to three simple reasons why I don't kill other people:

1.) I don't need to. I'm not low on money, and quite frankly there's nothing to gain from killing anyone.

2.) My brain is mentally attached to a great many people, and killing them or even letting them be killed would cause me a fair amount of anguish.

3.) Killing someone would be more trouble than it's worth, because I would most likely be arrested and tried in court for murder.

Moving on...

Whether or not killing human beings is any less "moral" than killing animals, however, depends entirely on your perception of what moral is. In my opinion, morality is defined by those in power, by whether or not certain actions will benefit society or hurt society. A crime is an action done against the interest of the public, so it is thus an immoral action. Murder is a crime, so it also therefore immoral.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/10/2006 at 11:23 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:19 AM on May 10, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2006 :
Quote from mythrandir at 09:39 AM on May 10, 2006 :
according to the theory of evolution, man is no more than an evolved animal.  


This is not correct.  

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as being derived from earlier forms via a complex set of processes related to imperfect replication during reproduction.

The bolded part of your quote is your philosophy, not the Theory of Evolution.




the bold part is the natural conclusion one must come to if one believes in the ToE.
man = evolved animal
therefore man is not > evolved animal


 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:20 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:19 AM on May 10, 2006 :
so its alright to kil animals when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but its not alright to kil animals for sport or when they are in danger of going extinct.  the ToE binds you to say the same thing for people, that its alright to kil people when they are causing you discomfort and for tests, but not for sport or when they’re in danger of going extinct.


The ToE binds me to nothing, first of all, because it's a scientific theory, not a moral stance.

Fundamentally, though, I agree that taken from a naturalistic viewpoint, there is nothing "wrong" with kiling human beings for the same reason that I think it's acceptable to kil animals.

Why don't I do it, then? Because our society has changed by itself, and over the ages of man's existence, we have discovered that mass, random slaughter contributes to        , and does not promote a stable government. The government provides for the people who live in it, so it's only natural to want that government to stay in tact. Using that information, we can come to three simple reasons why I don't kil other people:

1.) I don't need to. I'm not low on money, and quite frankly there's nothing to gain from kiling anyone.

2.) My brain is mentally attached to a great many people, and kiling them or even letting them be kiled would cause me a fair amount of anguish.

3.) Kiling someone would be more trouble than it's worth, because I would most likely be arrested and tried in court for murdur.
(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/10/2006 at 11:23 AM).


alright, imagine a situation in which a person is very mad at another person.  that gives him a reason to kil him (1).  he would enjoy kiling him (2).  he also doesnt care about possible consequences and doesnt think that "its more trouble than its worth" (3).  in this situation, would you justify murdur?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:32 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:19 AM on May 10, 2006 :
In my opinion, morality is defined by those in power, by whether or not certain actions will benefit society or hurt society.


which one is morality defined by?
1) those in power
OR
2) what benefits society

they are very different things.

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:36 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

which one is morality defined by?
1) those in power
OR
2) what benefits society

they are very different things.


You should have been able to gather that my answer would be both. In a true democracy, it should be Two, while in parts of the world, like Sudan, it's mainly just One.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:04 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:20 PM on May 10, 2006 :
the bold part is the natural conclusion one must come to if one believes in the ToE.


In your opinion.

What you are may be defined by science, what you feel yourself to be "more than" needs to come from within.

Do you feel any less Loved by the fact that you are an "evolved animal"?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:42 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:42 PM on May 10, 2006 :
Quote from mythrandir at 3:20 PM on May 10, 2006 :
the bold part is the natural conclusion one must come to if one believes in the ToE.


In your opinion.

What you are may be defined by science, what you feel yourself to be "more than" needs to come from within.

Do you feel any less Loved by the fact that you are an "evolved animal"?




that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of evolutionists.  read carefully- if man IS an evolved animal, that means he is not MORE than an evolved animal.

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 12:43 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 4:04 PM on May 10, 2006 :
which one is morality defined by?
1) those in power
OR
2) what benefits society

they are very different things.


You should have been able to gather that my answer would be both. In a true democracy, it should be Two, while in parts of the world, like Sudan, it's mainly just One.


yeah, i thought you'd say that, i just had to ask to make sure.  so those in power define morality, and ideally those in power would seek the good of the society?

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 12:46 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



The incommunicado of the evolutionists.... Even the demons believe and tremble! Being an evolutionist, ipso facto, bounds you to be being an immoral being. Haphazardly, Darwin's
Origin of Species neither Lyell's book did not include a section on morality. Briefly, if you believe in evolution killing an animal should be acceptable as killing a man (also an "animal"). Fortun8ly, a majority of maxims on morality in 2day's countries (even USA) are based on biblical principles or some other  religious principles!


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 03:56 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(Alright, this is getting frustrating. It's been two and a half days, and the guys at my wireless tower have yet to fix my connection. It almost seems like my internet capabilities at my house are deteriorating.

Anyway, looks like I'll have to be content with saving my posts on transportable devices and taking them to school.)

The incommunicado of the evolutionists.... Even the demons believe and tremble! Being an evolutionist, ipso facto, bounds you to be being an immoral being. Haphazardly, Darwin's
Origin of Species neither Lyell's book did not include a section on morality. Briefly, if you believe in evolution killing an animal should be acceptable as killing a man (also an "animal"). Fortun8ly, a majority of maxims on morality in 2day's countries (even USA) are based on biblical principles or some other  religious principles!


Beautiful poetry, Cipher. I would prefer you contribute to the discussion next time, though.

that is not my opinion, it is the opinion of evolutionists.  read carefully- if man IS an evolved animal, that means he is not MORE than an evolved animal.


You’re confusing the predictions of the Theory of Evolution with Naturalism. One is a philosophical perspective that makes the above claim; the other is just a scientific theory that fits with it, as well as countless other philosophies and religions.

Evolution makes no moral assertions. There are people of all sorts of beliefs that accept and study it as science, from Catholics and Lutherans to Hindus and Atheists. The opinions of morals will vary from evolutionist to evolutionist. Many subscribe to the teachings in the Bible, others with the teachings of Buddha, while others are content with no structured moral code at all, and simply conform to society’s laws. I don’t think hunting is moral, but there are innumerable evolutionists go hunting.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/11/2006 at 08:35 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:21 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if those in power define morality, than the pogroms engineered by the Communist government were moral and the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were moral, to name just a few examples.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 11:06 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our DNA code is so much like a chimpanzee's DNA code, but then why are we so different?  We may not be too different physically, but mentally.  Man is the only "animal" that has a government.  Man is the only "animal" that has crime.  Man is the only "animal" that feels embarrased when not wearing clothes.  Man is the only "animal" that truly feels love.  Man is the only "animal" that needs rules outside of natural ones.

How does evolution explain this?  I know Creation does.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:45 AM on May 11, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if those in power define morality, than the pogroms engineered by the Communist government were moral and the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were moral, to name just a few examples.


Morality is but an opinion, so obviously there are different definitions of it everywhere. Simply because morality is defined one way, however, it doesn’t mean everyone else subscribes to that particular definition. Again, what’s your point?

Our DNA code is so much like a chimpanzee's DNA code, but then why are we so different?  We may not be too different physically, but mentally.


We’re 98.6% similar DNA-wise. That 1.4% can go a long way.

Man is the only "animal" that has a government.


False. Hundreds of species of insects form their own governments. In the case of human beings, governments are indirect results of our DNA. We don’t automatically form governments simply because we have human DNA, but insects do. I still see what you mean though. Human beings certainly are more mentally sophisticated than other animals, because we definitely do come up with the most complex governmental structures, though that’s not to say they’re always more effective than ant colonies…

Man is the only "animal" that has crime.


I don’t know if that’s true either. Crime is simply an action against the public interest. Bees have public interest. If one of their workers started tearing down the hive, that worker would likely be “executed” by a swarm of her sisters.

Man is the only "animal" that feels embarrased when not wearing clothes.


Not at birth, we sure don’t. If you dress a chimpanzee up in clothes from the first day they’re born and into adulthood, and you teach that chimpanzee that it’s not okay to be naked, that chimpanzee would be just as embarrassed. There are plenty of mammals that exhibit near identical emotional reactions to human beings. You’re also forgetting that there are humans on this earth who don’t feel embarrassed when they’re naked. In parts of Africa, women don’t bother covering their breasts. It appalls western missionaries, but the African citizens aren’t troubled by that at all.

Man is the only "animal" that truly feels love.


That is simply not true. Dolphins, dogs, whales, primates of all sorts… They all exhibit fierce, affectionate, fearful, and heart-breaking emotions at times.

Man is the only "animal" that needs rules outside of natural ones.


Man doesn’t need rules outside of natural ones. What are you talking about?

How does evolution explain this?


Oh come on. I seriously hope you have at least an idea. The answer, quite simply: better-developed brains are advantageous. We’re human beings, the most intellectual organisms (that we know of) on this planet. We conquer our difficulties with the mind, not the muscle, as the rest of nature is still doing. It all has to do with the evolution of the brain, and nothing more. Perhaps you've heard of the science called psychology.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/11/2006 at 12:07 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:05 PM on May 11, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ENTWINK:
Beautiful poetry, Cipher. I would prefer you contribute to the discussion next time, though.


It's evident that contributing to a discussion on this topic entails agreeing with the evolutionist's ideologies. Again, neither Lyell nor Darwin included a section on morality in their books... It goes to show that the morality question cannot be answered by evolutionist ideas but by a set of principles decreed by an omniscient being. Isn't that clearly adding opposition to your argument... The plight of the evolutionist!

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/15/2006 at 08:28 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 08:24 AM on May 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's evident that contributing to a discussion on this topic entails agreeing with the evolutionist's ideologies.


Hardly so. Pyrocidalmaniac and Mythrandir disagree with me, and yet they manage to add much more than empty sophistry.

Again, neither Lyell nor Darwin included a section on morality in their books... It goes to show that the morality question cannot be answered by evolutionist ideas but by a set of principles decreed by an omniscient being.


I would definetely agree that the objective of the ToE is not to explain morals. That is the reason it's not mentioned in Darwin's writing. You must also consider that Darwin was around before Freud. Psychology, a field hardly explored in Darwin's time, does a fine job of scientifically describing morals. That's not to say, however, that the ToE cannot explain morals. It certainly does, as I've already demonstrated. You're already aware that Darwin's goal was not to explain morality in the first place, so logically, he's not going to waste space doing so in his books. Likewise, works published on the subject of morality are not going to waste time explaining the ToE.

If your assertion is that the ToE cannot explain morality, though, you'd be entirely incorrect. The ToE, while obviously not the most important resource in studying naturally-derived morality, fits right in place with the conclusions offered by human archaeology.

That's all assuming, of course, that we're talking about naturalism. There are plenty of evolutionists who would argue morality is derived directly from the God they believe in.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:18 AM on May 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll direct Cipher's attention to this thread at 4forums.com.

The principles of morality as an evolved behavior are carefully addressed and covered. Citing from "Johnthanks," the author of the thread:

"As with language, the brain is pre-disposed to acquire rules, but exactly which rules it acquires will vary from culture to culture and from age to age. If the Pope had been kidnapped as a baby and time-machined back to Aztec Mexico, he would have grown up believing human sacrifice to be not only morally acceptable but a moral obligation. So is there any common thread? What moral rules have in common is that they generally value the benefit of the group over the benefit of the individual: selfishness is generally ‘wrong’, altruism ‘right’. Humans are social beings or they are nothing: in early human evolution, individual survival was wholly dependent on group survival. It is not hard to see how behaviours promoting group survival – what we now label moral behaviours - were subject to strong selective pressure in our early ancestors."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:05 PM on May 15, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:05 PM on May 11, 2006 :
if those in power define morality, than the pogroms engineered by the Communist government were moral and the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were moral, to name just a few examples.


Morality is but an opinion, so obviously there are different definitions of it everywhere. Simply because morality is defined one way, however, it doesn’t mean everyone else subscribes to that particular definition.


you said, "A crime is an action done against the interest of the public ... Murdur is a crime, so it also therefore immoral." you define immorality as crime and crime as going against the interest of the public. by "interest of the public" do you mean what the public wants or what is best for the public?  also, the ToE says that man is an evolved animal.  so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.  how can man be MORE THAN an evolved animal at the same time that he IS an evolved animal?



 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 02:30 AM on May 17, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

by "interest of the public" do you mean what the public wants or what is best for the public?

The best interest of the public is what allows it to survive...

so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.  how can man be MORE THAN an evolved animal at the same time that he IS an evolved animal?

I don't understand the question, yes, the TOE says man is an evolved animal, all animals are evolved animals.  I think you are the only one claiming man is something more than an evolved animal, because the TOE makes no such claims.  It up to you to present evidence to support your claim....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:46 AM on May 17, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:46 AM on May 17, 2006 :
by "interest of the public" do you mean what the public wants or what is best for the public?

The best interest of the public is what allows it to survive...

so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.  how can man be MORE THAN an evolved animal at the same time that he IS an evolved animal?

I don't understand the question, yes, the TOE says man is an evolved animal, all animals are evolved animals.  I think you are the only one claiming man is something more than an evolved animal, because the TOE makes no such claims.  It up to you to present evidence to support your claim....


EntwickelnCollin was saying that the ToE does NOT say that man is no more than an evolved animal.  Please define "public".  Do you mean an ethnic group, a nation, or the entire world?


 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 06:31 AM on May 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.  how can man be MORE THAN an evolved animal at the same time that he IS an evolved animal?


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never stated man was superior, above, or "more than" an animal. Man is an animal.

EntwickelnCollin was saying that the ToE does NOT say that man is no more than an evolved animal.


Where did I say that?

Please define "public".  Do you mean an ethnic group, a nation, or the entire world?


The public can count as all of those. After all, we have the public in my town, which has its own set of laws, and the public of my state, which also has its own laws that would slightly differ in a neighboring state. The United States also has a set code of law which differs from that of Mexico's. Then there are alliances between nations that make their own laws, such as those defined by the Geneva Convention. What's the significance of how one would define public?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:28 AM on May 17, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 01:30 AM on May 17, 2006 :
so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.


And I'll say it one more time, YOU are saying this, not the Theory of Evolution.  

You are projecting.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:25 AM on May 17, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:28 AM on May 17, 2006 :
so, ill say it one more time, the ToE says man is not MORE THAN an evolved animal.  how can man be MORE THAN an evolved animal at the same time that he IS an evolved animal?


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never stated man was superior, above, or "more than" an animal. Man is an animal.

EntwickelnCollin was saying that the ToE does NOT say that man is no more than an evolved animal.


Where did I say that?


Sorry, it was actually Apoapsis- read his latest post.

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 1:47 PM on May 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, it was actually Apoapsis- read his latest post.


I agree with Apoapsis. The Theory of Evolution does not state man is superior, equal, nor inferior to any other animal. It doesn't state anything of that subject at all.


You're really wording this in an awkward manner, however, and I'm afraid of contradicting myself in another post because I misunderstood what what you're saying. I'd like you to clarify, just for the record, exactly what you're saying the ToE does state, without all the double negatives.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/17/2006 at 3:32 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:30 PM on May 17, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin:

The simplification of ur stance on the morality issue is alarmingly appaling and ambigous.  You first stipulate that "morality is but an opinion" and then you go further to mention that "Crime is simply an action against public interest..." Implying that a society (an individual also constituting a "society") cannot truly commit a crime; it is merely posed as an: " Oh, I think society doesn't agree with u" verdict. What, I'm getting to is that society (again individual being a possible society)
cannot perfectly define standards of moral behaviour or any other form of organisational
principles. Why? Simply, yes, simply because individuals(esp)/societies are unique. If ur wrong is my right, I would've exhaust my self in also incorporating the other  6 billion difference in opinions in the world.  True, socities/indi have regrouped and set maxims e.g. Death penalty may be pemissible in Texas but not in New York but for society to attain moral standards, what constitutes a crime in Tex should constitute a crime in NY! Ipso facto, if you reject this standard and accept man as merely an animal (irregardless whether superior or not) you should also be prepared to accept crime with a healthly smile. I mean, a buck does not complain of being devoured by a lion, or a lion killing another lion, it is accepted as defeat from another "animal." Don't be disgruntled if you find ur house empty or your car having being "permanently borrowed - stolen" some day....
 



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 7:13 PM on May 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The simplification of ur stance on the morality issue is alarmingly appaling and ambigous.  You first stipulate that "morality is but an opinion" and then you go further to mention that "Crime is simply an action against public interest..." Implying that a society (an individual also constituting a "society") cannot truly commit a crime; it is merely posed as an: " Oh, I think society doesn't agree with u" verdict. What, I'm getting to is that society (again individual being a possible society)
cannot perfectly define standards of moral behaviour or any other form of organisational
principles. Why? Simply, yes, simply because individuals(esp)/societies are unique. If ur wrong is my right, I would've exhaust my self in also incorporating the other  6 billion difference in opinions in the world.  True, socities/indi have regrouped and set maxims e.g. Death penalty may be pemissible in Texas but not in New York but for society to attain moral standards, what constitutes a crime in Tex should constitute a crime in NY! Ipso facto, if you reject this standard and accept man as merely an animal (irregardless whether superior or not) you should also be prepared to accept crime with a healthly smile. I mean, a buck does not complain of being devoured by a lion, or a lion killing another lion, it is accepted as defeat from another "animal." Don't be disgruntled if you find ur house empty or your car having being "permanently borrowed - stolen" some day....


Believe it or not, animals complain when bad things happen to them. (ie: Cheetahs cry when their cubs are killed.) Most mammals experience the emotion of anguish, including human beings. With that in mind, I don't know why you think acting sad when something bad happens to me is an unacceptable occassion to become upset or exhibit other emotions of human nature.

Why should I accept crime? Crime hurts me and the society I live in. It's in my best interest that crime is stopped. (Of course, we both know the system can't work that way without committing crime itself.)

The simplification of ur stance on the morality issue is alarmingly appaling and ambigous.  You first stipulate that "morality is but an opinion" and then you go further to mention that "Crime is simply an action against public interest..." Implying that a society (an individual also constituting a "society") cannot truly commit a crime; it is merely posed as an: " Oh, I think society doesn't agree with u" verdict. What, I'm getting to is that society (again individual being a possible society)
cannot perfectly define standards of moral behaviour or any other form of organisational
principles.


I never said society could perfectly define morality. Various crimes, on the other hand, are pretty clear cut as to whether they truly hurt society or not.



This back and forth style of argument is not working for the subject we're talking about. Mythrandir and Cipher seem to believe a naturalistic viewpoint on morals is contradictory to some of my own opinions, but they've been unable to show any such contradiction. They're confused, and their arguments are no longer coherent. I'm afraid mine aren't quite coherent on this subject either, so let's start over.

Mythrandir, I'd like you to write down a precise explanation of what naturally-derived morals contradict in our society. You keep asking a bunch of foundational questions, but we have yet to see any bang for your buck. Just explain everything you've got in mind, because this has been going nowhere for nearly two weeks.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/18/2006 at 07:25 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:20 AM on May 18, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 2:13 PM on May 17, 2006 :
EntwickelnCollin:

The simplification of ur stance on the morality issue is alarmingly appaling and ambigous.  You first stipulate that "morality is but an opinion" and then you go further to mention that "Crime is simply an action against public interest..." Implying that a society (an individual also constituting a "society") cannot truly commit a crime; it is merely posed as an: " Oh, I think society doesn't agree with u" verdict. What, I'm getting to is that society (again individual being a possible society)
cannot perfectly define standards of moral behaviour or any other form of organisational
principles. Why? Simply, yes, simply because individuals(esp)/societies are unique. If ur wrong is my right, I would've exhaust my self in also incorporating the other  6 billion difference in opinions in the world.  True, socities/indi have regrouped and set maxims e.g. Death penalty may be pemissible in Texas but not in New York but for society to attain moral standards, what constitutes a crime in Tex should constitute a crime in NY! Ipso facto, if you reject this standard and accept man as merely an animal (irregardless whether superior or not) you should also be prepared to accept crime with a healthly smile. I mean, a buck does not complain of being devoured by a lion, or a lion killing another lion, it is accepted as defeat from another "animal." Don't be disgruntled if you find ur house empty or your car having being "permanently borrowed - stolen" some day....


morality is completely subjective while at the same time being bound to our physiological make-up. right and wrong differ from culture to culture, but it generally tends to keep rules like 'killing is wrong' or 'no slavery'. this is because humans are naturally empathetic, due to thousands of years of evolution which have forced us to become very social animals. and so we subconsciously value the life and support of other people around us. but there are those who are less in tune with these values--this is because of the increasingly wide variety of genes in the gene pool--a product of society's ability to retain genes that are not neccessarily beneficial. we help everyone survive and so we have a greater variety of people.

wrong and right are subjective and circumstantial.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:57 PM on May 18, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan and EntwickelnCollin

I’ve noted that Mythrandir has not yet put the sustenance on the platter… but I would like to share the routing of my thoughts about this topic.

Firstly, I don’t have a “naturalistic view” point on morals. My morals are not societal and are not subject to any change. Again, they dwell on the cognizance of an omniscient being, who with deliberateness hath created man kind and the set of principles of which he must live.
The fault begins when man fails to govern himself by these standards, even superciliously deriving his own! This is where the crux is. Man cannot define how man should live, or how man should conduct himself as he roams the earth! Call it “a variety of genes in the gene pool – RoyLennigan” or whatever but man is inconsistently unique and has failed to realise it circumspectly.

Secondly, if man is simply a derivative of an obligingly uncompromising specie then things get worse as: who is one to condition himself superior to say what I could/should/shouldn’t do? I mean: snow in Ottawa is no better than snow in Toronto and (vice versa!), it falls (melts, created!) haphazardly (I know not completely…!) and cannot impose any parameters to the fall of a flake in Toronto. Basically, none is in a position to reprimand the behaviour of another, i.e. by this fact, it is as acceptable to fall on the side walk or the top of a house.

The stance of man kind: (1) Man cannot define a set of rules on living, he can approximate them, whether negatively (e.g. Sudan) or (quite) positively, like any current peaceful country.
(2) If we are merely a “self – created (effectively, that what the ToE says!)”; I see no reason to questioning the tendency of a specie to defy “societal norms”.  


(Edited by CipherComplete 5/19/2006 at 07:48 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 05:33 AM on May 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


(2) If we are merely a “self – created (effectively, that what the ToE says!)”; I see no reason to questioning the tendency of a specie to defy “societal norms”.  


What are you talking about? No one's questioning "the tendency of a specie to defy societal norms."

The fault begins when man fails to govern himself by these standards, even superciliously deriving his own! This is where the crux is. Man cannot define how man should live, or how man should conduct himself as he roams the earth!


Nothing more than your opinion. Good luck proving that one.

Call it “a variety of genes in the gene pool – RoyLennigan” or whatever but man is inconsistently unique and has failed to circumspectly    realise it circumspectly


Man is unique, and has failed to cautiously realize that he is unique? Please explain how that has any connection to the impossibility or nonsense of naturally-derived morals.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:28 AM on May 19, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin:
I refer:
“What are you talking about? No one's questioning the tendency of a specie to defy societal norms.”
I quote:
“Whether or not killing human beings is any less "moral" than killing animals, however, depends entirely on your perception of what moral is. In my opinion, morality is defined by those in power, by whether or not certain actions will benefit society or hurt society.”



The word questioning in my post above is not being applied in its default meaning. Here I’ve used the word, with lack of a better one, to mean “not accept” or conflict what could be evolved society (defined) “ethical” standards (please enlighten me with a better word). Hope I’m clear.  


I quote:
“Please explain how that has any connection to the impossibility or nonsense of naturally-derived morals.”


Naturally derived morals can be seen as a problem of summing infinity.  We all know that a set of infinity cannot be attained to allow us to produce a summation – impossible. NOW, we have a over 6 billion beings alive on any day, each unique (with out a strict, coherent pattern), each viewing the world from their own perspective combined with environment aspects, their genealogy and other society imposed factors. Now try and get such a population (or even a subset of it for that matter!) to completely agree with any principle – impossible- history has shown it; even to an extent where our morality stance evolves. Now, such man defined morality will always be demeaned because it is subject to change. Realising that we are unique and imperfect will aid us to  realise that society derived morals are nonsensical, in fact a trivial practice which we are oblivious of. Mark my words.

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/19/2006 at 10:27 AM).

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/19/2006 at 10:33 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:19 AM on May 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Naturally derived morals can be seen as a problem of summing infinity.  We all know that a set of infinity cannot be attained to allow us to produce a summation – impossible. NOW, we have a over 6 billion beings alive on any day, each unique (with out a strict, coherent pattern), each viewing the world from their own perspective combined with environment aspects, their genealogy and other society imposed factors. Now try and get such a population (or even a subset of it for that matter!) to completely agree with any principle – impossible- history has shown it; even to an extent where our morality stance evolves. Now, such man defined morality will always be demeaned because it is subject to change. Realising that we are unique and imperfect will aid us to  realise that society derived morals are nonsensical, in fact a trivial practice which we are oblivious of. Mark my words.


This debate is not about whether or not society-derived morals are perfect or sensible. It's about whether morals are truly derived from society. Showing that society-derived morals are illogical under certain contexts is completely irrelevant to whether or not that morals were indeed derived from society and not a higher power.

It's also important to note that even if the Biblical explanation of morals is true, we've still branched off the Bible and made our own morals, many of which coincide with what the Bible demands. The Bible said nothing about the UN feeding starving African children, but it's nonetheless a moral practice. It's a moral our society agrees upon, both taking into account Biblical law and our own.

The whole point is that you have failed entirely, and you will continue to fail entirely, to show that a god is necessary in order to explain the morals we have today. You can show as many examples of silly, seemingly contradictory morals as you please, but you will not come an inch closer to showing that god must have existed in order to explain morality.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:43 PM on May 19, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, ill try to be very clear.

1) According to the ToE man evolved from an animal.

2) According to the ToE man is an animal.

3) According to the ToE man is HIGHER than OTHER animals.

4) According to the ToE man is NOT HIGHER than ALL the animals, because man is the highest animal and man is not higher than itself.

By "higher", I mean more developed.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 04:54 AM on May 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) According to the ToE man evolved from an animal.


Yes.

2) According to the ToE man is an animal.


That's according to all biology--not just the ToE. But, since the ToE is part of biology, that's a yes.

3) According to the ToE man is HIGHER than OTHER animals.


NO! The ToE says no such thing.

4) According to the ToE man is NOT HIGHER than ALL the animals, because man is the highest animal and man is not higher than itself.


Man is not the "highest" animal. Man's "height," as in development, in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom is purely a matter of opinion, and the ToE certainly does not say anything about that.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/20/2006 at 09:30 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:29 AM on May 20, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 12:33 AM on May 19, 2006 :
RoyLennigan and EntwickelnCollin

Firstly, I don’t have a “naturalistic view” point on morals. My morals are not societal and are not subject to any change. Again, they dwell on the cognizance of an omniscient being, who with deliberateness hath created man kind and the set of principles of which he must live.
The fault begins when man fails to govern himself by these standards, even superciliously deriving his own! This is where the crux is. Man cannot define how man should live, or how man should conduct himself as he roams the earth! Call it “a variety of genes in the gene pool – RoyLennigan” or whatever but man is inconsistently unique and has failed to realise it circumspectly.

we have been defining how we should live for as long as we've been here.  even during the time that the 'lord's word' has been on this planet it has been interpreted differently, continuing to this day.  even the law of god changes, at least in they eyes of men.  there is no law that is not subject to circumstance.  the only absolute in this universe is that change is constant and inevitable.  absolute truth can only be experienced--it cannot be attained from any book no matter who wrote it.

Quote from CipherComplete
Secondly, if man is simply a derivative of an obligingly uncompromising specie then things get worse as: who is one to condition himself superior to say what I could/should/shouldn’t do? I mean: snow in Ottawa is no better than snow in Toronto and (vice versa!), it falls (melts, created!) haphazardly (I know not completely…!) and cannot impose any parameters to the fall of a flake in Toronto. Basically, none is in a position to reprimand the behaviour of another, i.e. by this fact, it is as acceptable to fall on the side walk or the top of a house.

i can barely even start to understand what you are talking about.  we base our ideas of what we should and shouldn't do around cause and effect.  we predict what the effect of a certain action will be and we judge if we can handle the repercussions.  or we predict what we can do to achieve the effect we want.  in a society, it is paramount that everyone is coorperative and has generally the same priorities.  morals have to be flexible things or you get stuck in situations where you have no idea what to do.  but you have to know when to uphold those morals.  you know better what to do with the more accuracy of your prediction of the effects of your actions.

Quote from CipherComplete
The stance of man kind: (1) Man cannot define a set of rules on living, he can approximate them, whether negatively (e.g. Sudan) or (quite) positively, like any current peaceful country.
(2) If we are merely a “self – created (effectively, that what the ToE says!)”; I see no reason to questioning the tendency of a specie to defy “societal norms”.

thing is, on the ultimate level, what we are talking about does not entail that humans create their own morals.  this idea--that you so fervently oppose--implies that our morality is a cause of our ability to predict and judge the need for our actions.  and the need for an action depends on the situation--the environment or circumstance.

so fundamentally, you can say that it is god that sets the laws for our morality--if you think that god created the laws of nature and if you define god as the motivator of all actions in our universe.  no more, no less.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 02:19 AM on May 21, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 05:19 AM on May 19, 2006 :
Naturally derived morals can be seen as a problem of summing infinity.  We all know that a set of infinity cannot be attained to allow us to produce a summation – impossible.

what are you even trying to say?  that naturally occuring morals are impossible because we cannot know all there is to know in the universe?  you're going to have to explain this point a little better.

Quote from CipherComplete
NOW, we have a over 6 billion beings alive on any day, each unique (with out a strict, coherent pattern), each viewing the world from their own perspective combined with environment aspects, their genealogy and other society imposed factors. Now try and get such a population (or even a subset of it for that matter!) to completely agree with any principle – impossible- history has shown it; even to an extent where our morality stance evolves. Now, such man defined morality will always be demeaned because it is subject to change. Realising that we are unique and imperfect will aid us to  realise that society derived morals are nonsensical, in fact a trivial practice which we are oblivious of. Mark my words.

this would seem to make sense, though only to someone who has not witnessed primitive societies, resembling that of many animals.  all societies hinge on one main idea, whether they know it or not--that it is wrong to bring harm to the societal ideal.  although each person has a slightly different idea of what their society is, they all think that it should not be harmed.  if the general population did not have this similar outlook, society would not be able to exist.  so it must be something inherent in our being that causes us to think in a similar way.  something in our genes that goes back even before we were human--as evidenced by the presence of similar animals as ourselves who create societies based on the same principle.




 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 02:22 AM on May 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

CC, I've stayed out of this argument for quite a while.  Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time will tell you that there is no doubt that I am a creationist with major issues with the TOE.  I also have a very good grasp of the English language as well as some knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew and some rudimentary skill in Spanish and Japanese.  Having said all that, your posts are giving me a headache.  On one hand you throw around Latin as if trying to prove something (when English has some perfectly good words that you could use).  I have no issue with bringing out a $10 word when it more accurately gets across a point than it's $1 cousin does, but you aren't even doing that.  On the other hand you are continually misspelling easy words (or using words that don't even exist) which makes you look like a complete moron (which is the opposite of what you are shooting for, I assume).  Please try to make your points in plain language that you think the people you are trying to reach will understand.  If you believe that you are trying to reach a bunch of Latin scholars, please find a Latin forum to attend.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
  EMyers


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:43 PM on May 21, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...your posts are giving me a headache.  On one hand you throw around Latin as if trying to prove something (when English has some perfectly good words that you could use).  I have no issue with bringing out a $10 word when it more accurately gets across a point than it's $1 cousin does, but you aren't even doing that.  On the other hand you are continually misspelling easy words (or using words that don't even exist) which makes you look like a complete moron (which is the opposite of what you are shooting for, I assume).


Amen Ed...As I see it, Cipher uses "ispo facto"when he could use "therefore" or "consequently".   "Ergo", he is a jackass.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:03 PM on May 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rofl... So anyway, I'd like to see the burden of proof for morals having necessarily been created by a higher power fullfilled.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:21 PM on May 21, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 03:54 AM on May 20, 2006 :

3) According to the ToE man is HIGHER than OTHER animals.

By "higher", I mean more developed.


Do you have a reference for this? in context???




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:37 PM on May 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) According to the ToE man evolved from an animal.

OK, kind of clumisly worded, but yeah...

2) According to the ToE man is an
animal.


As EntwickelnCollin said, according to Biology and the ToE is a major part of biology, so yes.

3) According to the ToE man is HIGHER than OTHER animals.

As many others have pointed out, this simply isn't true.  What does higher mean?  It has no meaning in the ToE.  Man's intelligence is just an evolved characteristic.  Other animals have other evolved characteristics.  Man's complex intelligence doesn't confer upon him any special status under the ToE.

4) According to the ToE man is NOT HIGHER than ALL the animals, because man is the highest animal and man is not higher than itself.

What?  Why do you say man is the highest animal?  Sure, he's the most intelligent, but why does that make him the highest?  The ToE certainly doesn't say that.  Other organisms are more successful than man, would that make them "higher" than man?

By "higher", I mean more developed.

What does "more developed" mean?  All animals are equally developed as man is, it's just that they developed characteristics other than a complex brain.  Once again, evolution doesn't place any higher significance on intelligence than any other characteristic.  You're making value judgements not supported by the theory of evolution.

(Edited by Demon38 5/22/2006 at 12:58 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:57 AM on May 22, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 09:19 AM on May 19, 2006 :
Naturally derived morals can be seen as a problem of summing infinity.  We all know that a set of infinity cannot be attained to allow us to produce a summation – impossible.


How much math have you had?

Infinite series


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:16 PM on May 22, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I've been gone for a long time.  
Apoapsis, demon: Your answers prove my point even more that the ToE has a definite say on morality.  Man is an animal and is not, as you say, in any way special.  Therefore, what is "wrong" to do to an animal is "wrong" to do to a person (who is an animal by ToE) and vice versa.  Also, there is no special "human morality" other than that cause by society.  Entwickeln- without a higher power there can be no ultimate morality. Raipe might be considered morally acceptable by 65% of the population, but does that make it acceptable?  

btw, I really am sorry about my spelling mistakes, but otherwise my words get censored out :-(
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 12:44 PM on May 26, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 11:44 AM on May 26, 2006 :
Ok, I've been gone for a long time.  
Apoapsis, demon: Your answers prove my point even more that the ToE has a definite say on morality.


You keep insisting that you know what the Theory of Evolution is "saying".  If it really "says" this then surely you can find us a quote from a textbook to back you up.  Otherwise it just proves our point that YOU are the one saying this.   You are reading your own philosophical position into this.

Man is an animal and is not, as you say, in any way special.  Therefore, what is "wrong" to do to an animal is "wrong" to do to a person (who is an animal by ToE) and vice versa.  Also, there is no special "human morality" other than that cause by society.  Entwickeln- without a higher power there can be no ultimate morality. Raipe might be considered morally acceptable by 65% of the population, but does that make it acceptable?  

btw, I really am sorry about my spelling mistakes, but otherwise my words get censored out :-(


You remind me of the kind of people that Arthur C. Clarke wrote about who "are afraid that the crossing of space, and above all contact with intelligent but nonhuman races, may destroy the foundations of their religious faith. They may be right, but in any event their attitude is one which does not bear logical examination -- for a faith which cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."


(Edited by Apoapsis 5/26/2006 at 1:24 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:18 PM on May 26, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This may be superflous:

ENK: "The whole point is that you have failed entirely, and you will continue to fail entirely, to show that a god is necessary in order to explain the morals we have today."

It is plain that a human mind is subject to certain constraints. Both physically and super-naturally. Morals is one aspect in which we fail to define with absolute terms due to limitations of the mind (e.g. we cannot determine life in the world in the year 3000); an omniscient being can "sought this out." - basic English. RoyLennigan hope I've covered you here also.

The absolute infantile attack on my approach to replies is unwanted! The likes of EMYERS claim to have "good grasp of the English language as well as some knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew and some rudimentary skill in Spanish and Japanese" yet when it comes to comprehension they do not know whether to use the hammer on the nail or vice versa. I duly apologise to the likes of Apoapis who have not understood some of my posts because of my "Latin use". Ipso facto means: by this fact! I pledge from hence forth to abstain from any "Latin use", this is not meant to be discussed on this Forum but it is the only way I can give voice to people's critisms. Note that I draw my red lines in fine print and not in pencil.

Maximum Respect, CipherComplete.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 07:06 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The absolute infantile attack on my approach to replies is unwanted! The likes of EMYERS claim to have "good grasp of the English language as well as some knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew and some rudimentary skill in Spanish and Japanese" yet when it comes to comprehension they do not know whether to use the hammer on the nail or vice versa. I duly apologise to the likes of Apoapis who have not understood some of my posts because of my "Latin use". Ipso facto means: by this fact!


We all know perfectly well what your latin means. It's when you focus more on the addition of Latin and less on the sense you're actually making that we'd like you to start speaking English again.

The likes of EMYERS claim to have "good grasp of the English language as well as some knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew and some rudimentary skill in Spanish and Japanese" yet when it comes to comprehension they do not know whether to use the hammer on the nail or vice versa.


If that is so, you shouldn't mind showing us where EMyers makes those mistakes.

It is plain that a human mind is subject to certain constraints. Both physically and super-naturally. Morals is one aspect in which we fail to define with absolute terms due to limitations of the mind (e.g. we cannot determine life in the world in the year 3000); an omniscient being can "sought this out." - basic English. RoyLennigan hope I've covered you here also.


I don't follow. Morality is subjective, so there of course cannot be any absolute or utterly righteous form of morality. What's your point?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:07 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ENK:  "I don't follow. Morality is SUBJECTIVE, so there of course cannot be any absolute or utterly righteous form of morality. What's your point?"

Yes, it is subjective of course if you conform to changing standards. Why do you then have a problem with murder? (Had to bring this up as a result of ur post - I understand the notion of society based morals). Subjective implies that even the murderer has the subjective right to be a subject which murders ruthlessly.

The ten commandments have been based millennia ago but many societies today still subscribe to them. This is in an "absolute or utterly righteous form of morality".




-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 09:44 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, may be I should start a Forum in Latin. EMYERS complained of "headaches" and fredguff posed an "Amen". I wonder how early day latin writers coped... :-)



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 09:55 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

perhaps it was because of they were speaking to native-latin readers....  the point is, when one is speaking in one language (english) and jumps in and out of other languages (latin, spanish, what-have-you) it is very annoying to try and follow, even if you are familiar with both languages.  If you have only a cursory knowledge of one of the languages (I doubt many readers on this forum are fluent in Latin) it becomes even more difficult to follow.  I used to work with a guy who was fluent in Arabic, Japanese, Chinese and a few others (as well as having an almost accent free English (it was quite impressive)).  Imagine how fun it was when he started jumping from language to language when he started speaking rapidly.  Wakarimasu ka?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:22 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, it is subjective of course if you conform to changing standards. Why do you then have a problem with murder?


Because I have a small experience in the subject of law, I’ll try to provide as much detail in my answer as possible.

Murder harms people, and as a fellow human being, I would not want someone to harm me. It's in my best interest, therefore, that murder be prohibited. However, note that this does not apply to Africa. Although society, and even the Bible, would dictate that it's wrong to allow the war and genocide in Africa to continue, most Americans could hardly care less. This is because, by the logic of the Golden Rule, we don't need to help Africans out. The victimized Africans have no enemy that is capable of harming us, so we let the killing continue.

It would be misleading to say our laws and the moral standards are derived only from the Golden Rule, of course. Besides “do unto others as you have them do unto you,” there is the idea of “the greatest good.” This is where “the majority rules” comes from. There are also the religious ideals every nation’s laws borrow from to one extent or another. (While religious ideas are certainly used, that does not prove the validity of the religion—only that its ideas of morality are popular among a particular society.)

I disagree with murder because I do not want to be murdered. (Neither do I want my friends and family murdered, because of my mental attachments to them, and the hindrances their deaths would put on my life… but that’s another issue.) I also disagree with murder because it’s in the best interest of the majority of the world’s populace not to be murdered.

Subjective implies that even the murderer has the subjective right to be a subject which murders ruthlessly.


That is often the case. Many murderers do not have any moral problem with killing. Not that their personal opinions on the issue of murder are going to bear them any weight in a trial, other than perhaps to convince the jury that they’re criminally insane.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:41 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.