A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[ElishaElijah]

One aspect is that discussion boards like this don't convey the same information as would be given in a face to face encounter. We don't see the small smile showing humor, or the wink showing understanding. That makes it *much* easier to mistake intentions and misread what people are trying to say.

Add to that the different abilities on putting ideas into writing and we get some of the difficulties of an internet society. Choosing the wrong word can sometimes make things spin out of control.

So, it is always a good idea to give some hint you mean a comment to be humorous. It is always a good idea to try to read something in a different light, with an understanding that the other person may have used the wrong word or misspelled.

And don’t use Siri

 

[ElishaElijah]

But there's a commonsense, reasonable explanation for the existence of a natural, biological morality. The goddidit hypothesis is pure, unsupported speculation.

Maybe unsupported using the current scientific approach because currently there is no way to prove spiritual matters other than seeing the physical outcome of God being there as in a person being delivered supernaturally like I was. How you going to prove that with the current technology? Wouldn’t it be arrogant to assume it isn’t so just because you currently don’t have the ability to see it?

 

[Valjean]

Only I never said anything of the kind.
I asked why in a godless universe I would be obligated to act morally?
That's got nothing to do with my actual behavior in the reality we inhabit.

You stated outright that the only constraint on selfish behavior was coercion, either from above, or from the law.

@Valjean

This is correct, what I see is you falsely frame your argument then your strawman version you judge as a sociopath. Those were the words you used, you describe your strawman version then you said you judge him as a sociopath.

Strawman? Review the list of our arrant friend's statements on the subject, post #510.

 

[Valjean]

That misses the point. The question is why we have any internal moral compass.

Doesn't natural selection explain that?
Why resort to magical explanations when there's perfectly reasonable, natural one?

 

[Polymath257]

That’s BS

I disagree. I think it is BS to wait until after marriage.

 

[Polymath257]

Relationships with life long promises to love, cherish and respect through anything that comes along, sickness, health, good times or bad, shows great character and integrity. People that honor their word and promises in marriage before God are the real heroes. This is true love. In my opinion when people are in and out of relationships and leave when the feelings aren’t there anymore for someone new will never experience that true joy and deep love of knowing another person, the acceptance and security of that cannot be touched.

I don't see any reason to bring a deity or the government into it. people can be in committed long term relationships without either.

Also, it is good to be able to get out of a relationship if it turns bad. And many do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Again, you confess you lack a moral compass; believe all people are like this, and believe only a threat of retribution from above will keep human society from disintegrating into anarchy.
This is a social disease, and it has a name.

Where does he lack a moral compass? 2020 with the riots showed this to be true, defund police and no punishment for crime and look what happens.

 

[ElishaElijah]

@Windwalker
This happened today, a dog took side cutters and gum out of one of our techs truck and tool bag. Didn’t even ask

 

[Polymath257]

Then why are you so fixated on the sexual aspect in relationships? Better to wait on that part and work on the rest of what you mentioned, communication, honesty, respect. Sex is what hinders these, I’ve noticed if 2 people have a relationship with no sex involved they remain friends if there’s a break-up, not the same when sex is involved.

I want to point out that my first comment along this line is asking why Abrahamics are so focused on sex.

Sex is an important part of a romantic relationship. But, as you point out, so are communication, honesty, respect, etc. To leave any of them out is to distort the relationship, making it an imperfect model of what happens when they are all included.

if sex stands in the way of maintaining a friendship after a breakup, then there is something wrong other than the sex. It shows a bit of immaturity to not be able to be friends with an ex (unless there is something very serious going on).

 

[Valjean]

Sure they do. Street gangs have rules, and pecking orders similar to a wolf pack. If that's morality most of us would not want morality.
And they tear apart members of the competing pack. That's not moral it's a survival instinct.

Yes. Humans in their natural state -- hunting-gathering bands -- exhibit intense, in-group coöperation, solidarity and altruism, but extending this to non-band members was not strongly selective, and many people, to this day, have a problem extending moral consideration to The Other. It's psychologically novel and unnatural.

The utility of such behavior is a new thing, which is why we need laws or religious coercion to enforce it amongst certain psychological throwbacks.
Most of us, though, have no problem extending our natural, inborn consideration more broadly.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe unsupported using the current scientific approach because currently there is no way to prove spiritual matters other than seeing the physical outcome of God being there as in a person being delivered supernaturally like I was. How you going to prove that with the current technology? Wouldn’t it be arrogant to assume it isn’t so just because you currently don’t have the ability to see it?

Spiritual matters, in the sense of a supernatural, simply do not exist as far as the evidence shows. EVERY single case where something supernatural was claimed, there has been a good natural explanation that is simpler than the supernatural one.

It isn't arrogant to not believe something because NO evidence points in that direction. You *claim* it is a matter of technology, but don't say how we could get the technology to measure what you claim exists. There is nothing testable there, and, until there is, it is reasonable and fair to not believe in it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Spiritual matters, in the sense of a supernatural, simply do not exist as far as the evidence shows. EVERY single case where something supernatural was claimed, there has been a good natural explanation that is simpler than the supernatural one.

Every single case? I guess if you count a limb growing, you could still make the case that all of the sudden the cells started to grow and there you go a limb. You know someone laid hands on the sick and they were instantly healed and upon further review they really believed hard enough and positive thinking did it.
I guess you’ll have to interview a lot of people to verify my claim otherwise not very good investigative work to claim every single change of heart was attributed to a natural thing. We have hundreds of interviews for you.

 

[Valjean]

And I have answered that: because we are a social species. That means we *care* about others in our tribe. We have a sense of fairness (like some other primates do).

The point is that caring and a sense of fairness is the basis of morality. Both are simply aspects of being human. No deity needed.

Many animals have been shown to have a sense of fairness. There are also studies demonstrating coöperation and non-genetic altruism.
ANIMALS’ SENSE OF FAIRNESS

 

[ElishaElijah]

Spiritual matters, in the sense of a supernatural, simply do not exist as far as the evidence shows. EVERY single case where something supernatural was claimed, there has been a good natural explanation that is simpler than the supernatural one.

It isn't arrogant to not believe something because NO evidence points in that direction. You *claim* it is a matter of technology, but don't say how we could get the technology to measure what you claim exists. There is nothing testable there, and, until there is, it is reasonable and fair to not believe in it.

Maybe read the last post, using current technology we have, nothing can detect spiritual things. Then you say they don’t exist. Arrogant in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

What an awful excuse, let’s not look at the lustful desires going unchecked and blame the rules, which people don’t believe or follow anyway. Nevertheless the Bible describes the reason.

???? -- What reason does the Bible describe?

 

[Polymath257]

Every single case? I guess if you count a limb growing, you could still make the case that all of the sudden the cells started to grow and there you go a limb. You know someone laid hands on the sick and they were instantly healed and upon further review they really believed hard enough and positive thinking did it.
I guess you’ll have to interview a lot of people to verify my claim otherwise not very good investigative work to claim every single change of heart was attributed to a natural thing. We have hundreds of interviews for you.

Show me one case where an amputated leg regrew.

The evidence we have is that prayer does NOTHING to help those who are sick. The exception is when the sick person *knows* people are praying for them, in which case the results are *worse* than for the cases where no prayer is done.

What is required is controlled studies that are double blind (to prevent signaling to the patient). And such have been conducted and prayer has been shown to be ineffective.

Now, if you have anything more than anecdotal claims, please let someone know.

 

[Valjean]

And violence, for that matter.

Murder and mayhem have always been considered prime-time fare for all ages. An exposed breast, on the other hand... <<shudder!>>

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe read the last post, using current technology we have, nothing can detect spiritual things. Then you say they don’t exist. Arrogant in my opinion.

OK, so how would one build a 'spirit detector'? Until someone comes up with a way, and it is verified, there is no evidence and the *simpler* explanations win.

For example, I can claim there are gnomes in my house, but that current technology can't detect them. I would bet you would say they do not exist. Why?

 

[ElishaElijah]

???? -- What reason does the Bible describe?

Romans 7

 

[Valjean]

Still more believable than everything coming from nothing with no mechanism to make it possible.

But that's the religious assertion, isn't it? Magic poofing?
Science looks for an observable, testable mechanism.

Wildswanderer said: ↑
The theory that proposes that we pulled ourselves out of the primoral muck by our non existent boot straps and developed into humans by an impossible process is imaginary.

What impossible process do you believe the unbelievers promote?