Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#102
#102
rjd970 said:
What in your view would discredit the exsistence of an omnipotent creator?

I generally find that the answer to this question says more about why people believe the way they do, more so than coming up with evidence for their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Legit question. I'm guessing you buy into the "why should I have to prove something I don't believe in doesn't exist; e.g. unicorns or the tea cup thing" so you feel relieved of the burden to list the evidence that would discredit your belief one doesn't exist.

To your quesiton,

I'd need to see compelling evidence demonstrating the creation of life from the "Big Bang" onto the current diversity. We have bits of unlinked evidence that doesn't preclude the notion of a creator.

I'd need to see compelling evidence of why across cultures and time there is a consistent human sense, feeling, urge to connect with their spirituality.

On the above point, I'd like to see compelling evidence of what it is in humans that across time and culture have created remarkably consistent conceptions of what a creator would be like and values.

On are topic of morality, I'd like to see compelling evidence explaining why we do have the common bits of morality across time and cultures.

In short, I'd need to see a better explanation or Grand Theory that accounts for the incredible complexity of both the physical and spiritual phenomena that we encounter.

At the current time and given the current evidence the notion of an intelligent creator makes more sense than assuming there isn't one.
 
#103
#103
rjd970 said:
So does islamic Sharia law by those definitions. Anybody that doesn't happen to be Muslim just happens to disagree with what they believe to be necessary codes of right and wrong. Just like I disagree with the Christian codes of right and wrong. See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Looks like you affirmed his point.
 
#104
#104
volinbham said:
I'm not saying the Ten Commandments are right or wrong. I'm saying they deal with morality as a concept. Likewise, Sharia law deals with morality. Claiming they deal with morality is not the same as sanctioning them - it is a definitional issue. Since each is essentially a code of conduct outlining good/bad; right/wrong behavior they meet the definitional requirements.

In truth, I don't see how you can get away from relative morality to some degree since moral codes are sanctioned by society(ies). Since society(ies) change and evolve over time, I'm not sure there is a universal moral code but their are some bits of that code that seem relatively uniformly accepted.

Put another way I don't have to believe in a rule of conduct for it to meet the primary definition of morality.
Click to expand...

That gets to the heart of one of my biggest issues, and the point I was trying to make. The religious concept of morality is often separate from the living reality of human suffering. Simply calling something moral because it fits a definition is (or should be) wrong. Religion gets the pass though, because it doesn't have to cut the mustard, "faith" takes its place. Now we don't have to examine what is actually said, God said it, and it's final. And like you already said, this is stuff written over 2000 years ago, so it gets a pass. The reality here is it was written by primitive and superstitious people who found it necessary to set rules out for the selling of slaves and conducting genocide, without the slightest inclination to make a moral judgement on what they were actually saying.

With all due respect, because I value your opinion, I think your answer is a cop-out here. This isn't about fitting a definition. When viewed in terms of outcome and human suffering, universal moral judgements are very easy to come by in most cases. At the very least, it is far better than anything outlined in the 10 commandments and Sharia law.
 
#106
#106
I'd say love thy neighbor, the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule pretty much cover it.
 
#107
#107
blamie said:
You don't actually expect gsvol to be burdened by things such as substantiated facts do you?

And by facts I mean actual pieces of evidence that have been accepted by more than one respectable source...not baseless conjecture and conspiracy theories...

The 98% should be enough to tell you how substantiated this claim is...that kind of percentage is basically impossible in a legit scientific study...

gsvol...if you're going to make something like this up and expect people to believe it you might want to come up with a number that's not completely laughable
Click to expand...

At least I can demonstrate some ability to separate fact from fiction and fact from theory, unlike you who just thumbs his nose at reality.

98% is what the FBI report stated.
 
#108
#108
rjd970 said:
That gets to the heart of one of my biggest issues, and the point I was trying to make. The religious concept of morality is often separate from the living reality of human suffering. Simply calling something moral because it fits a definition is (or should be) wrong. Religion gets the pass though, because it doesn't have to cut the mustard, "faith" takes its place. Now we don't have to examine what is actually said, God said it, and it's final. And like you already said, this is stuff written over 2000 years ago, so it gets a pass. The reality here is it was written by primitive and superstitious people who found it necessary to set rules out for the selling of slaves and conducting genocide, without the slightest inclination to make a moral judgement on what they were actually saying.

With all due respect, because I value your opinion, I think your answer is a cop-out here. This isn't about fitting a definition. When viewed in terms of outcome and human suffering, universal moral judgements are very easy to come by in most cases. At the very least, it is far better than anything outlined in the 10 commandments and Sharia law.
Click to expand...


You are reading too much into what I'm saying.
 
#109
#109
volinbham said:
Legit question. I'm guessing you buy into the "why should I have to prove something I don't believe in doesn't exist; e.g. unicorns or the tea cup thing" so you feel relieved of the burden to list the evidence that would discredit your belief one doesn't exist.

To your quesiton,

I'd need to see compelling evidence demonstrating the creation of life from the "Big Bang" onto the current diversity. We have bits of unlinked evidence that doesn't preclude the notion of a creator.

I'd need to see compelling evidence of why across cultures and time there is a consistent human sense, feeling, urge to connect with their spirituality.

On the above point, I'd like to see compelling evidence of what it is in humans that across time and culture have created remarkably consistent conceptions of what a creator would be like and values.

On are topic of morality, I'd like to see compelling evidence explaining why we do have the common bits of morality across time and cultures.

In short, I'd need to see a better explanation or Grand Theory that accounts for the incredible complexity of both the physical and spiritual phenomena that we encounter.

At the current time and given the current evidence the notion of an intelligent creator makes more sense than assuming there isn't one.
Click to expand...

The two bolded points are legit in my opinion, but the absence of such answers isn't reason enough to believe an ominoptent creator is the source of everything. That is a matter of opinion, which I respect.

Given the sheer number and variety of Gods that have passed into history, I would debate your claim they have been remarkably consistent in values.

As for everything else, there are perfectly reasonable biological reasons for values and morals. Chimpanzees have been shown to look down on murder, theft, and sexual immorality. They tend to value family more than with other chimps, and they place a high value on social structure. We don't have to debate the merits of this, but I think it is compelling that such divine "human" traits are not restricted to humans only. There very well could be a evolutionary genesis to the whole question.
 
#112
#112
rjd970 said:
Chimpanzees have been shown to look down on murder, theft, and sexual immorality. They tend to value family more than with other chimps, and they place a high value on social structure.
Click to expand...

That is 100% untrue. Chimpanzees form teams for the purpose of killing a lone chimp for sport.
 
#113
#113
kptvol said:
That's obviously a lie.
Click to expand...

You're offended because I have gone after the Christian beliefs. If I was on here decrying the idiocy of Islam you wouldn't have such thin skin.

It's a matter of preference as to whether or not you want to explain the "ultimate" type questions with a creator. I don't care, but don't come on here like the Judeo-Christian beliefs are somehow better than anything else.
 
#114
#114
rjd970 said:
You're offended because I have gone after the Christian beliefs. If I was on here decrying the idiocy of Islam you wouldn't have such thin skin.

It's a matter of preference as to whether or not you want to explain the "ultimate" type questions with a creator. I don't care, but don't come on here like the Judeo-Christian beliefs are somehow better than anything else.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't characterize you as someone that respects the belief of Islam. As Judge Judy would say, "don't pee on me and tell me it's raining."
 
#115
#115
rjd970 said:
I don't think you are reading enough, if you simply think a definition covers it.
Click to expand...

you made a statement that 1/2 the commandments don't deal with morality. I responded saying that because they are specifically a code of conduct statements outlining what is right/wrong; good/bad that by definition they deal with the subject matter of morality.

Holding them to a standard of universally right or accepted is adding a requirement to the definition that is not their.

Put another way - you are talking normative while I'm talking descriptive.
 
#117
#117
rjd970 said:
First, that is absolutely true. Second, humans have been known to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

How exactly do we know that chimps look down on that kind of behavior? As to your second point, I'd say that contradicts what you said earlier about us having an innate sense of right/wrong and therefore not needing any sort of moral code from above.
 
#118
#118
Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds - and fanatics.
Cassius J. Keyser
 
#119
#119
rjd970 said:
The two bolded points are legit in my opinion, but the absence of such answers isn't reason enough to believe an ominoptent creator is the source of everything. That is a matter of opinion, which I respect.


Given the sheer number and variety of Gods that have passed into history, I would debate your claim they have been remarkably consistent in values.

I would suggest there are many more similarities than differences and the differences make sense given man is generally limited in his ability to conceive that beyond which he knows - in other words, the differences reflect the context of the time and place.


As for everything else, there are perfectly reasonable biological reasons for values and morals. Chimpanzees have been shown to look down on murder, theft, and sexual immorality. They tend to value family more than with other chimps, and they place a high value on social structure. We don't have to debate the merits of this, but I think it is compelling that such divine "human" traits are not restricted to humans only. There very well could be a evolutionary genesis to the whole question.
Click to expand...

I don't claim that "human" traits are restricted to humans.

Basically, it comes down to a debate about the creative force - was it intelligent or random. Was there a "sense" to it or is it simply a result of the characteristics of matter itself. Either explanation is a fantastic leap to conceive. The evidence we have to date doesn't invalidate either view. As a result I view a true atheist view as being as much of a leap of faith as does a creator-based view.
 
#121
#121
Chimps commit infanticide, murder, theft, steal their murder victim's mate, and routinely practice behavior best described as deceit.
 
#122
#122
rjd970 said:
If you believe that man to monkeys is too theoretical, especially given the evidence for it, how can you possibly believe half of what's in the Bible? That is the point I was getting at, and Christian tradition is where most of what was talked about in the OP is coming from.
Click to expand...

Because monkeys can't write and darwinists can't let go the panic button is my theory.

What's your theory??
 
#125
#125
kptvol said:
Chimps commit infanticide, murder, theft, steal their murder victim's mate, and routinely practice behavior best described as deceit.
Click to expand...

That does it buster, you are now in deeeeeep doo doo, the chimpanzee anti-defamation league has just placed you on it's 'ten most wanted' list.













691.gif
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top