Stephen Hawking
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Point 1: Christianity might espouse U. H. B., but the Old Testament espouses genocide, fratricide, incest, rape of slaves and many other abhorrent practices. Do you think you can take one Testament without the other?
Point 2: No-one should adopt a Darwinistic morality. Darwinism just decribes how life has evolved, not how humans should behave. Having said that, I firmly believe that people are generally good to each other because it has historically good for human social and family groups. In short, altruistic behaviour in humans has evolved. Not all behaviour is altruistic within humans, though; as with any variation within populations, there is a spread of behaviours, many combinations of which can be evolutionarily stable. It's been extensively studied and is extremely fascinating. Instead of throwing out strawman arguments against Darwinism, you might actually gain something by reading a little on the subject.
Point 2: No-one should adopt a Darwinistic morality. Darwinism just decribes how life has evolved, not how humans should behave. Having said that, I firmly believe that people are generally good to each other because it has historically good for human social and family groups. In short, altruistic behaviour in humans has evolved. Not all behaviour is altruistic within humans, though; as with any variation within populations, there is a spread of behaviours, many combinations of which can be evolutionarily stable. It's been extensively studied and is extremely fascinating. Instead of throwing out strawman arguments against Darwinism, you might actually gain something by reading a little on the subject.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Examples of altruism towards strangers are most likely caused by our evolved emotional and altruistic behaviours misfiring. In the early days of our evolution, other humans and human children suffering were unlikely to be members outside one's own social group, but now humans are in artificially vast communities those feelings can be triggered towards completely unrelated individuals.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
..
Your interpretation is foundless though. Those verses are supposed to be literal. Only modern Christians try to interpet them to defend them. The original writers and people of the time were not into allegory
How do you know? Besides, "literal" 2000 years ago isn't the same as literal today, language develops.
This just makes no sense. TO YOU! How many "average people" understand the physics that Hawking describes? Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it less real. "Just makes no sense"...that's a really weak argument.
If God didn't create the physical world, then what exactly is his role?
Why do we need Pluto? Alpha Centauri? Lots of things exist, that we puny humans cannot find justification for.
We are physical beings, we live in a physical world. Our minds and thoughts are just by products of that physical being.
In your fixed world, there is obviously not even a moments consideration that those roles could be reversed. We could be "spiritual beings", that are currently having a physical experience.
A god has no place if they have not created, nor interfered, influenced etc
No place here? YUP! Didn't make it, doesn't like it, doesn't come here, but wishes we would return to the Almighty.
This is like a last stand when the idea of God is so against everything the fallback position is "you can never detect him or find proof" - it's back to faith......
I did NOT say that you cannot detect God. You need to use the correct tools to search, and these are mental tools.
Imagine you did not have a ruler, but only a set of scales. Would distance not exist, simply because you could not weigh it???
Let's take something scientific, like predicting weather. If you watch the predictions, you will notice that they are only accurate to within a maximum of 24 hours. 7-day reports, are wildy inaccurate. Snip them off the net on Monday...then Tuesday...and so on. Compare the prediction for the weekend weather between Monday and Thursday. Then compare it to the actual weather on Saturday.
You will notice how hopeless the predictions are.
Yet now, most of the Earth's population has fallen for the climate change scares, and actually believe that scientists know what the weather on this planet will be like in 100 years.
THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL THE WEATHER FOR THE DAY AFTER NEXT.
NO, I don't think this means that science is all bull****. What it means, is that even science needs faith!
Faith, believing in something, based on what some "smart" people have said, about things you don't understand. Not too far from the Churches and religions of this world.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
From: Epsom
Once again the utter fail in the use of the word faith. Once again a definition for the terminally stupid....
Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something without proof or evidence.
See that bit about proof and evidence? Science = proof and evidence. How stupid do you have to be to not understand this simple point? Science is based on evidence. Whether or not you understand it is merely a reflection of your intelligence and is immaterial. Stop trying to mangle the English language to buttress an indefensible position.
P.S. I think the EVIDENCE actually refutes the idea of MMGW but thats another thread.
Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something without proof or evidence.
See that bit about proof and evidence? Science = proof and evidence. How stupid do you have to be to not understand this simple point? Science is based on evidence. Whether or not you understand it is merely a reflection of your intelligence and is immaterial. Stop trying to mangle the English language to buttress an indefensible position.
P.S. I think the EVIDENCE actually refutes the idea of MMGW but thats another thread.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Point 2: No-one should adopt a Darwinistic morality. Darwinism just decribes how life has evolved, not how humans should behave. Having said that, I firmly believe that people are generally good to each other because it has historically good for human social and family groups. In short, altruistic behaviour in humans has evolved. Not all behaviour is altruistic within humans, though; as with any variation within populations, there is a spread of behaviours, many combinations of which can be evolutionarily stable. It's been extensively studied and is extremely fascinating. Instead of throwing out strawman arguments against Darwinism, you might actually gain something by reading a little on the subject.
You realize that legitimizes racism?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Explain to me concisely how you come to that conclusion, because I don't see it. Variation in behaviours is, to an extent, genetically controlled. What we call "morality" is a human construct, designed to reinforce naturally "good" behaviours and discourage aberrant, antisocial behaviours. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are automata completely devoid of control over our actions. But once again, you're at it with your straw men - just because a logical conclusion is unpalatable, doesn't make it any less true.
Are you going to read anything about evolution today, or am I going to have to continue fighting with an unarmed man?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
Once again the utter fail in the use of the word faith. Once again a definition for the terminally stupid....
Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something without proof or evidence.
See that bit about proof and evidence? Science = proof and evidence. How stupid do you have to be to not understand this simple point? Science is based on evidence. Whether or not you understand it is merely a reflection of your intelligence and is immaterial. Stop trying to mangle the English language to buttress an indefensible position.
P.S. I think the EVIDENCE actually refutes the idea of MMGW but thats another thread.
Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something without proof or evidence.
See that bit about proof and evidence? Science = proof and evidence. How stupid do you have to be to not understand this simple point? Science is based on evidence. Whether or not you understand it is merely a reflection of your intelligence and is immaterial. Stop trying to mangle the English language to buttress an indefensible position.
P.S. I think the EVIDENCE actually refutes the idea of MMGW but thats another thread.
obviously the nearer to get to the "truth" -- the more you have to pay the scientist to come up with contra evidence -- until they just look daft
the Tobacco lobby were refuting the link between smoking and cancer until quite recently (they may still do -- although I would have thought they would have to pay quite alot for the evidence to support it)
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Explain to me concisely how you come to that conclusion, because I don't see it. Variation in behaviours is, to an extent, genetically controlled. What we call "morality" is a human construct, designed to reinforce naturally "good" behaviours and discourage aberrant, antisocial behaviours. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are automata completely devoid of control over our actions. But once again, you're at it with your straw men - just because a logical conclusion is unpalatable, doesn't make it any less true.
Are you going to read anything about evolution today, or am I going to have to continue fighting with an unarmed man?
Are you going to read anything about evolution today, or am I going to have to continue fighting with an unarmed man?
Anway are you saying the transition from Roman morality of strength to Christian compassion was genetically determined?
Morality exists above genetic determinism. It's whole point is to stop us acting 'natural', like animals. Animals need no morality, they just do. If you have civilisation you have need for modification of natural behaviors and then the question of conscience.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; Sep 24, 2010 at 08:33 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Explain to me concisely how you come to that conclusion, because I don't see it. Variation in behaviours is, to an extent, genetically controlled. What we call "morality" is a human construct, designed to reinforce naturally "good" behaviours and discourage aberrant, antisocial behaviours. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are automata completely devoid of control over our actions. But once again, you're at it with your straw men - just because a logical conclusion is unpalatable, doesn't make it any less true.
Are you going to read anything about evolution today, or am I going to have to continue fighting with an unarmed man?
Are you going to read anything about evolution today, or am I going to have to continue fighting with an unarmed man?
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
LOL you racist.
Anway are you saying the transition from Roman morality of strength to Christian compassion was genetically determined?
Morality exists above genetic determinism. It's whole point is to stop us acting 'natural', like animals. Animals need no morality, they just do. If you have civilisation you have need for modification of natural behaviors and then the question of conscience.
Anway are you saying the transition from Roman morality of strength to Christian compassion was genetically determined?
Morality exists above genetic determinism. It's whole point is to stop us acting 'natural', like animals. Animals need no morality, they just do. If you have civilisation you have need for modification of natural behaviors and then the question of conscience.
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
You think Lord of the Flies is unrealistic for a degenerating social group?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
It's a fair allegorical reference and makes a good point. Would Jack Merridew have maintaned his civility had a deity derived code of laws been quickly established on the island?
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Look, rather than keep replying with another question, just spit it out, why don't you just tell us what you really think, what you believe, yada, yada, as straight and concise as possible. Then at least we know where you stand and then we can all begin to to understand what you are trying to say and move on with the debate.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Morality relates to universal truths regarding behavior; what is right or wrong etc. It's more than social behavior since it implies a conscience. Ants don't have morality for example.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
The fact you ask this question shows how inconclusive this story is when used to try to back up the arguement. It's fair to say it will make you think about morality, nothing more, but to say that this story is evidence to say that without religion we would all be like "animals"?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
The fact you ask this question shows how inconclusive this story is when used to try to back up the arguement. It's fair to say it will make you think about morality, nothing more, but to say that this story is evidence to say that without religion we would all be like "animals"?
TONY, DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE?
