Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Photonic]

This is so pathetic. It would not be so bad if it wasn't so universal. I never said anything that implied a person can't be moral without God. In fact I said the exact opposite. Did you even rtead the post or did you see Christian as my religion and turn red and argue against whatever you chose. What I said that an Atheist can of course decide to do good. He just can't suffeciently say what good is. I have given you and many others a chance to easily show that wrong. You have failed. It is easy. Prove that murder is actually wrong without God. Prove that good and evil have any actual meaning without God. If you can't, and you instead appeal to points I did not make then I can't see a future for a discussion with you.

No you clearly see the argument you made up and attributed to me is wrong. What I actually said is fact. For some reason your stats didn't make it to this quote page and your link is not found when clicked. However as I am familiar with this bizarre and impotent missuse of statistics I will reply. I thought you were posting the stats on what Americans claim their religous affiliation is. After review I have no idea what your statistics concern. It does not say and your link does not work. Are you saying that prison religous groups are these numbers? If so I will adress it but why are you posting it. I did not say anything about prisons. I said that both atheists and Christians can do rgreat things. However only the Christian can suffecienty explain why or even what good, eveil, right, or wrong actuall mean. The atheist can't. I do not think you get it and instead invent whatever you wish to argue against. Your stats have nothing to do with that.

It's your own argument, it sucks that it isn't supported by evidence, but you'll have to deal with that on your own.

 

[1robin]

It's your own argument, it sucks that it isn't supported by evidence, but you'll have to deal with that on your own.

So we have failure to answer the simple test I provided once again by a religion critic and some statistics that refuse to be clarified and a link that does not work. Good work.

 

[McBell]

I see that 24 hour phase of humility and making meaningfull coments has drawn to a close. It is back to cheerleading, color commentary, and hissing from the stands again for you.

It hard to take seriously someone whose is proud of their blatant double standards.

And since you revealed your blatant double standard in post 967...

 

[Photonic]

So we have failure to answer the simple test I provided once again by a religion critic and some statistics that refuse to be clarified and a link that does not work. Good work.

Yea, shame that the university has updated their page on the study their researchers did.

Somehow it's still more valid than the ******** fountain that you've turned this thread into.

 

[work in progress]

This does not make murder actually wrong. It simply makes it majority disapproved.

And why do you think the majority disapproves? It seems like you are only capable of following a list of do's and don't's, and have no inner, subjective sense of right and wrong, otherwise you would understand that this is not just a matter of opinion.

Since you express your contempt and disinterest in psychological research, you will gain nothing from this, but maybe someone else will:
the evidence that we have an inner moral sense that often guides our decision-making, is found by merely examining how people react when presented with the Trolley Car Dilemmas, where the subject has to make a quick judgment when presented with two stark choices that provide no third options.

On the BBC Website they provided this handy little example of trolley car problems with the polling results added under the heading: What If....
In the first trolley car dilemma - no.2, the subject is presented with two choices: 1. flip a switch to divert a train car to save 5 people standing on the track, even though there is one person standing on the side track who will be killed by that action. Or 2. Do nothing, and allow the train to kill the five on the main track.

In that example, most people make a simple utilitarian calculation that it is better to take an action that kills one to save five, so over 75% vote to flip the switch; and that choice is made by similar overwhelming majorities wherever the question is presented; indicating that the results show that most people will make the equivalent utilitarian judgment. Those results can be skewed if the subject is told that the person on the sidetrack is a friend or family member close to them, or that the five on the track belong to some religious, ethnic or other group that the subject may feel some animosity towards. But, all things being equal, most people are utilitarians with the basic question, but.......
No.3 presents the same Trolley Car problem as the first...all are faceless strangers, except this time there is no switch! So the subject has only one option to stop the trolley car from killing the five on the track....and that is to push a fat man off a bridge on to the track, killing him, but for the purposes of a hypothetical dilemma, he is massive enough to stop the train car.

So, how do most people react in No.3? Should be the same result; after all, it's a choice of killing one to save five. But, this time the numbers are reversed, with opposite results of 75% opposing taking the action, even though it will result in the five on the track being killed by the train.

What is especially intriguing to cognitive psychologists and neuro-philosophers, is that the different results are indications that we use different regions of the brain in decision-making in everyday life! The dispassionate utilitarian calculations are made from the higher level executive functioning areas of the frontal cortices, while the 2nd choice, demanding personal contact....getting your hands dirty....generates a sense of revulsion involuntarily, and overrides that one for five decision of the first example where no personal contact was demanded.

What these and similar moral dilemmas show us is that there are foundations for moral and ethical behaviour hardwired within us that do not need to be taught to us later in life. But those two dilemmas and many others, also illustrate the limitations of just using our natural instinctive moral sense, since the moral systems that have developed within the human race are relational -- it's easy to get people to show concern for family, friends or people that we feel a connection with, but it is much more difficult to generate the same concern for complete strangers, especially the further away they live from us, and if they are different races or belong to different religions. This is the area where a religion or method of teaching that promoted universal values could be very useful; but all of the religious sects that follow in group/out group norms increase the amount of harm done, because they justify and reinforce the hatreds of despised groups - i.e. the example of Hitler and the Nazis, and how the rise to power of Nazism in Germany was aided and abetted by the pre-existing rise of German nationalism and the longstanding hatred and suspicion of despised minorities like Jews and Gypsies.

I do not acknowledge the authority of anything outside of the word of God. The Torah is the books of Moses and are contained in the Bible. First the laws contained therein are only for the Hebrews for a specific time. They do not apply in the New Covenant to anyone. Second there are no laws in the Torah that allow unjustified killing. Third we are hardly capable of knowing whether God's acts are justified or not. Fourth I am not stressing the details as much as the core. If we adopt Murder is wrong that settles the issue and the murder of unborn children as an act of birth control would be stopped. That alone justifies it's adoption. The application and determination of justified is a matter I was not discussing and present in any system adopted.

Starting from the end, what is an "unborn child?" Is a fertilized embryo an unborn child? That's what the fundamentalists pushing so called - personhood amendments and legislation are trying to advance. With that definition, not only do women lose the right to abortion, even in cases where their lives are endangered by pregnancy or is likely the result of rape; they also lose the right to most forms of birth control, because common forms like oral contraceptives and IUD's can stop the development of any fertilized eggs. It's at this stage where the so called right-to-life lobby reveals itself as having no concern for life or suffering, but is motivated by regaining control of the fertility of women....which women took for themselves when they had the ability to plan pregnancies.

Enough of the abortion obsession...the people pushing 10 Commandments monuments to be put in court houses sure would not agree that the Law only applied to the Hebrews! And I suspect that most fundamentalists who give such a wave-of-the-hand dismissal of the bloodthirsty conduct of the Israelites and the justifications contained in the Law, are just trying to avoid the subject, since they feel free to pull examples from the Old Testament whenever they are convenient. If you want to dismiss the Old Testament because it is inconvenient baggage for Christians in this day and age, here are some handy Bible verses that would lead to the opposite conclusion:

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant.

Matthew 5:17 .....'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.'

Matthew 5:18-19Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 3:31 .....'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.'

Extinction from what source?

A self-inflicted wound in a matter of speaking!

The world is far more resilient than you describe.

Really! The world hasn't been absorbing the extra carbon we've been dumping in the atmosphere for the last 200 years, nor has it been able to maintain the abundance of fish in the oceans, or stop the rainforests from shrinking. The world may become resilient again after the human race drives itself towards extinction, but not before then!

The population seems to fluctuate based on resource availability. It is nothing new. I almost feel sorry for any one that is this worried. My faith alleviates quite a bit of these issues.

Your faith allows you to live in denial of the obvious, so I would consider it to be an enabler of what's wrong with this world, not a method for taking action to stop our march towards destruction. In that manner, religious faith that presents God as the escape clause for degrading this world is a contributor to the damage...just like the secular forms of religion that present blind faith in future technology as the savior!

Islam is IMO a cancer. I do not claim there is no merit in it. I have for a long time been fascinated by demons and spiritual warfare. The descriptions of his revelations are word for word the same as the Bible and many examples even today of demonic influence. A favored tactic of Satan and demons is to imitate God, to gain trust by giving helpful information, and to cloak diabolical actions in righteousness.

You would likely contribute to spiritual warfare, since you declare the other major religion in the world to be the enemy. And I am always fascinated by how dualistic the religion of many evangelicals has become, with a Satan who's almost equal to God - omnipresent, omniscient, and almost omnipotent....yet somehow everyone else is deceived by this Satan except for the "True" Christians!

 

[1robin]

It hard to take seriously someone whose is proud of their blatant double standards.

And since you revealed your blatant double standard in post 967...

Yep your back from that momentary break from sarcasm and color commentary all right. How in the world can you remember what I said in a post back in March? That is weird. This is that post.

A biological test isn't applicable to or referred to in God's case. It is what is used and refered to in evolutions case even though it fails it's own test most of the time. These questions belong in a differenty thread.

Now that I review it I have even less of an idea what you are talking about than I did before. What are you talking about?

 

[1robin]

Yea, shame that the university has updated their page on the study their researchers did.

What does this mean? Are you saying that the site is down and so you have no idea what the stats mean? What are those stats? Prison population demographics. American demographics. World demographics. American prison demographics. World prison demographics. I do not know what you are trying to say. Here are some numbers 6, 22%, x^2, .0000000000001. I win.

Once again you can't and have not even attempted to prove that evil actually exists or Murder is actually wrong without God. Your position demands you be able toanswer these simplistic and basic questions and until you or any other Bible critic can it is you who are stinking up the issue.

 

[1robin]

And why do you think the majority disapproves? It seems like you are only capable of following a list of do's and don’ts, and have no inner, subjective sense of right and wrong, otherwise you would understand that this is not just a matter of opinion.

That is what subjective means. It means subject to influence by the opinions of it's subjects. Without a common designer there is no rational basis for concluding we have any kind of semi universal code of morality. Evolution if believed, created vast divergent physical characteristics, why do you think it would create consistent moral ones? If we assume God then we have a perfectly sufficient reason to believe this is true. Let me clarify again that our God given conscience allows all people (atheists, Gnostics, Satanists, any one) to recognize right and wrong to varying degrees and act morally. If uncoupled from it's source though these moral actions lose all justification. We are left with the adoption of arbitrary morality with no way to conclude whether even universal beliefs are actually right. We can't even conclude that the concept or good and evil have any actual foundation.

Since you express your contempt and disinterest in psychological research, you will gain nothing from this, but maybe someone else will:
I had to delete some in order for it to fit on one post. Sorry.

You are right I do not value most psychology. I am familiar with this "dilemma" and find it underwhelming and silly. I will not address it further for obvious reasons.

Starting from the end, what is an "unborn child?" Is a fertilized embryo an unborn child?

This is a good point. By the way how is it that a woman has the right to an abortion? Who gave her that right? Who gives anyone any rights? Thomas Jefferson (no Christian by any means) however knew very well that without God there are no rights. We demand rights without any justification for them. What we know is this. That at some time between fertilization and birth the fetus becomes what we refer to as a person. In some legislation as you pointed out this occurs long before birth. There is no actual line we can assume that clearly defines where this legal transformation occurs. The problem is unsolvable but the solution is very easy. Err on the side of life. To avoid as we do in legal matters and all other medical matters all possible mistakes that would result in the suffering or destruction of the innocent. With God the hopelessly mired in confusion becomes clear. That still leaves rape and life threatening issues but I am for abortion in these cases. However in the others just quit having sex or use readily available contraception. If not then do not kill the innocent to save any inconvenience to the guilty party. Obedience to God’s word would avoid the whole issue.

Enough of the abortion obsession...the people pushing 10 Commandments monuments to be put in court houses sure would not agree that the Law only applied to the Hebrews!

Actually I did not think you would be interested in a biblical discussion so I did not elaborate much. The deca-law is the only possible exception to what law was done away with in the new covenant. It is not strictly part of the Levitical law and so was not specifically associated with the first covenant. I have no actual position on the issue but it definitely is legitimate.

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant.
Matthew 5:17 .....'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.'
Matthew 5:18-19Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Romans 3:31 .....'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.'

A Biblical discussion on the dispensation of covenant and grace will take over the discussion. I will add a few statements but do not believe this is where you wish to go with the debate.
New International Version(©1984)
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
I can go on indefinitely but this is a complex issue that requires much time to hash out. It is up to you.

A self-inflicted wound in a matter of speaking!
Really! The world hasn't been absorbing the extra carbon we've been dumping in the atmosphere for the last 200 years, nor has it been able to maintain the abundance of fish in the oceans, or stop the rainforests from shrinking. The world may become resilient again after the human race drives itself towards extinction, but not before then!

In my view our resources will not disappear before God brings everything to a halt but without him the Human race will just do what we always have, grow or shrink based on resources. I do not remember why this is relevant anyway. Without God nothing has any actual meaning, purpose, or reason and ends in heat death anyway. What difference does it make if that includes a trillion humans or only 10 billion? Non-believers get some kind of comfort from visions of the future of the race that I have never understood. Whatever happens to the race you will not be aware of it without God.

Your faith allows you to live in denial of the obvious, so I would consider it to be an enabler of what's wrong with this world, not a method for taking action to stop our march towards destruction.

To start with prove without God that our destruction is actually bad or wrong. As in that scientists example I gave he said we did not have a right to stop nature from wiping us out. Actually you appeal to Christian indifference is wrong. We are told to be good stewards of the Earth. I just don't see why without him any of it matters.

In that manner, religious faith that presents God as the escape clause for degrading this world is a contributor to the damage...just like the secular forms of religion that present blind faith in future technology as the savior!

Ok, you’re just making up stuff now. There is no reason to suggest that Christians are any less environmental than anyone else. In fact the moral nihilism and utter lack of any meaning, purpose, or future for the universe and us without God is a far greater reason to give up and not care anymore. Please show that it is actually good without God to ensure the future of our species. Of course like you I think it is good but unlike you I have a sufficient justification for that belief.

You would likely contribute to spiritual warfare, since you declare the other major religion in the world to be the enemy. And I am always fascinated by how dualistic the religion of many evangelicals has become, with a Satan who's almost equal to God - omnipresent, omniscient, and almost omnipotent....yet somehow everyone else is deceived by this Satan except for the "True" Christians!

You were so reasonable and rational until now. Your relative civility lasted longer than most anyway. I never said, never heard a single Christian say, and have never believed that Satan is in any way close to God in power. The Bible said it may very well appear to be so when the unjust succeed and the righteous suffer, when wars and inhumanity to man rule the day, which is perfectly explained by the verse that says for a little while Satan is prince of the earth. It was made so because the Earth in general chose him as prince knowingly or not. However unlike the story you invented God puts a stop to all that and restores justice to the Earth. Unlike without him in that all sad tale of woe, inhumanity to each other, our pointless existence as a biological anomaly, and our incessant violence and oppression of each other that has not improved at all over the years until we finally blow ourselves up or die a slow painful heat death with the rest of the meaningless universe. By the way it is not in conflict with God's instructions to call a lie a lie or a satanic teaching as such. It is however evil to not do so. Jesus called his own corrupt priests a brood of vipers and said they would never escape hell. I think you meant religious animosity or maybe violence not spiritual warfare, They are radically different.

 

[Photonic]

What does this mean? Are you saying that the site is down and so you have no idea what the stats mean? What are those stats? Prison population demographics. American demographics. World demographics. American prison demographics. World prison demographics. I do not know what you are trying to say. Here are some numbers 6, 22%, x^2, .0000000000001. I win.

Once again you can't and have not even attempted to prove that evil actually exists or Murder is actually wrong without God. Your position demands you be able toanswer these simplistic and basic questions and until you or any other Bible critic can it is you who are stinking up the issue.

Ignore the numbers. I'm sorry your argument doesn't hold water, but that's no reason to throw out more strawman arguments.

 

[1robin]

Ignore the numbers. I'm sorry your argument doesn't hold water, but that's no reason to throw out more strawman arguments.

I did not want to ignore the numbers I see their missuse by the critics side constantly. I simply wanted them to be explained. Apparently that is a bridge to far for their poster. Your the one whos position can't answer the simple and necessary test. Prove murder is actually wrong without God.

 

[Photonic]

I did not want to ingore the numbers I see their missuse by the critics side constantly. I simply wanted them to be explained. Apparently that is a bridge to far for their poster. Your the one whos position can't answer the simple and necessary test. Prove murder is actually wrong without God.

Sure. Right after you prove that killing is wrong no matter what the circumstances. Because clearly there are exceptions to murder is wrong with God.


I simply will give you this answer to ponder: Killing someone is only considered murder if it's deemed unacceptable by society. When it's acceptable, it's "Heroic."

 

[1robin]

Sure. Right after you prove that killing is wrong no matter what the circumstances. Because clearly there are exceptions to murder is wrong with God.

Murder implies unjustified killing. Killing is justified in many circumstances. If we had not killed Hitler's minions the world would have been under complete oppresion for many years. Entire races would have been exterminated. Those are pretty good circumstances where killing is not murder. The ten commandments said to not murder they did not say to not kill.

I simply will give you this answer to ponder: Killing someone is only considered murder if it's deemed unacceptable by society. When it's acceptable, it's "Heroic."

No wonder you avoided answering the question. I sai dprove it is actually wrong. I did not say say to state when arbitrary popular opinion considers it so. A great portion of what popular opinion has claimed has been found to be evil. You are simply stating an opinion of preference you have said nothing at all about what is actually wrong. Some cultures prefer to love their neibors, some prefer to eat their neibors using the same methods to determine which as you have described. Maybe you can explain how you can prove who is right without God. You can't but maybe you could try. Without God morals are rooted in nothing suffecient for the needs of society. Even Jefferson knew that.

 

[Photonic]

Murder implies unjustified killing. Killing is justified in many circumstances. If we had not killed Hitler's minions the world would have been under complete oppresion for many years. Entire races would have been exterminated. Those are pretty good circumstances where killing is not murder. The ten commandments said to not murder they did not say to not kill.


No wonder you avoided answering the question. I sai dprove it is actually wrong. I did not say say to state when arbitrary popular opinion considers it so. A great portion of what popular opinion has claimed has been found to be evil. You are simply stating an opinion of preference you have said nothing at all about what is actually wrong. Some cultures prefer to love their neibors, some prefer to eat their neibors using the same methods to determine which as you have described. Maybe you can explain how you can prove who is right without God. You can't but maybe you could try. Without God morals are rooted in nothing suffecient for the needs of society. Even Jefferson knew that.

Burden of proof is on you for making the claim, I am not going to do your work.

 

[1robin]

Burden of proof is on you for making the claim, I am not going to do your work.

If you are asking for proof that stopping Hitler was a justified action I give up.

 

[work in progress]

That is what subjective means. It means subject to influence by the opinions of it's subjects. Without a common designer there is no rational basis for concluding we have any kind of semi universal code of morality.

Our opinions and our observations that they may be based on, are a result of physical brain function. And the bulk of the processing that allows us to function, even when we are awake, is done at a subconscious level.

As for a 'common designer,' the belief that humans, like all animals, were created separately by a grand designer, was just accepted at face value until modern times, because that's what appearances based on limited information would indicate. But, as soon as explorers started traveling the world and taking notes, they started finding problems with creation stories....especially when it was combined with the story that all of the surviving land animals walked off a giant boat in pairs, only about 4000 years ago!

Evolution if believed, created vast divergent physical characteristics, why do you think it would create consistent moral ones?

Are you talking about animals or humans here? Because there is only one species of hominids that survived to modern times, and the physical characteristics are superficial in comparison. Throughout most of the time humans were living during the Pliocene Epoch, they moved about in small bands of extended families, gathering and hunting for food. The life of hunter/gatherers typically requires good cooperation, and that would have an impact on morality. One of the reasons why civilization is in deep crisis today is because technology and excessive materialism have increased our isolation and dependence on others. I don't think it's any coincidence that the rise of the ethic of individualism began first in the United States, where there had been lots of open spaces and resources available (after pushing out natives in many instances), and that individual rights and freedoms became more important than social wellbeing and responsibility to others. These individualistic values have been intensified and spread worldwide since the TV Age, and especially with the rise of new personal computing technologies that allow people to move about feeling totally disconnected from the world around them. Ayn Rand and her doctrine of Egoism would have been a minor footnote in history if it wasn't for modern technology. So, the moral norms that result from the principles of kin selection and reciprocal altruism, were developed at a time in human history long before the rise of agriculture, permanent, crowded settlements, social status and class hierarchies.

If we assume God then we have a perfectly sufficient reason to believe this is true.

I already mentioned before that we do not have the capacity to step outside our physical limitations to recognize God. After all, how do we know it's not really Satan appearing as a being of light?

You are right I do not value most psychology. I am familiar with this "dilemma" and find it underwhelming and silly. I will not address it further for obvious reasons.

And you probably didn't want to answer the questions either! These and other problems are a useful way of showing how complicated and often conflicting our own moral judgments are, because we use a combination of higher order processing with unconscious emotional reactions.

This is a good point. By the way how is it that a woman has the right to an abortion? Who gave her that right?

Who's having the baby? I think right from the outset, that if something is happening in your body, you should have the ultimate say over what happens. On abortion, you're arguing that unconscious, developing life which hasn't been born and established any interests to preserve in this world, should be considered having equal rights with a woman who has lived for many years, has a past...hopefully has a future....but anti-abortionists want to put that in jeopardy....and has developed many personal relationships with other living, breathing people here, while the zygote/embryo/fetus has not!

That still leaves rape and life threatening issues but I am for abortion in these cases.

That's good to hear! Many who call themselves pro life these days are not willing to make those exceptions....I'm thinking in particular of that idiot Congressman who thinks women have the ability to shut down the fertility process during rape. It does show that we have to make value judgments in cases where there are competing rights - like between the fetus and the pregnant woman.

Actually I did not think you would be interested in a biblical discussion so I did not elaborate much. The deca-law is the only possible exception to what law was done away with in the new covenant. It is not strictly part of the Levitical law and so was not specifically associated with the first covenant. I have no actual position on the issue but it definitely is legitimate.
A Biblical discussion on the dispensation of covenant and grace will take over the discussion. I will add a few statements but do not believe this is where you wish to go with the debate.
New International Version(©1984)
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Don't forget that punishment for violating any of those commandments was death, whether it was murder, theft or working on the Sabbath. But, when it comes to keeping the rest of the Law, you can find Bible verses for keeping it or getting rid of it. The Bible is the great big book of multiple choice on many issues, especially this one, where the early Christian communities were in turmoil on the subject. We can see that in the Book of Acts, although it appears to be a sanitized version of the dispute between Peter and the Church in Jerusalem, and all the new gentile Christians that came in with the Apostle Paul.

In my view our resources will not disappear before God brings everything to a halt but without him the Human race will just do what we always have, grow or shrink based on resources. I do not remember why this is relevant anyway.

It's relevant because what if you're wrong? What if God doesn't appear to save humanity from the brink of disaster? How many failed predictions of the 2nd Coming have we had so far? Why should I believe that any future sign will appear?

I think it is relevant to examine fundamentalist's opinions on the environment because so many are on the side of rampant, uncontrolled exploitation....like Sen. James Inhofe, who serves as the oil conglomerates paid spokesman in the U.S. Senate, and says stupid things like climate change disaster can't happen because God promised not to destroy the world again after the Great Flood. Whether he actually believes this or not is immaterial; the real issue is that he is a powerful politician who has even used his influence to harass and threaten climatologists like NASA's James Hansen.

Without God nothing has any actual meaning, purpose, or reason and ends in heat death anyway. What difference does it make if that includes a trillion humans or only 10 billion? Non-believers get some kind of comfort from visions of the future of the race that I have never understood. Whatever happens to the race you will not be aware of it without God.

That's true that our universe ends in heat death (although there is another theory that it will expand to a certain size and velocity and suddenly disintegrate....same result though), and I avoid the secular attempts to create the equivalent of paradise through faith in linear progress of science and technology to some kind of Star Trek future, or the faith that technology can provide lives so long we are virtually immortal. If such a thing were possible, it would only be accessible by a scant few elite, and the plundering of resources by people living thousands of years would be unimaginable! I would just like to think that, for whatever reasons we are here now, and this universe exists at this point in time, that it will not just degrade into a misery hell in the coming decades. On our present course, I don't know if I will live to see this world turn into a dystopian hell, but our children, grandchildren or any future generations will have to deal with what happens to this earth. If I live a long life, I would like some assurance that the future will look better for those coming after us...that is all!

 

[1robin]

Our opinions and our observations that they may be based on, are a result of physical brain function. And the bulk of the processing that allows us to function, even when we are awake, is done at a subconscious level.

I do not understand the relevance here.

As for a 'common designer,' the belief that humans, like all animals, were created separately by a grand designer, was just accepted at face value until modern times, because that's what appearances based on limited information would indicate.

Let me clarify a bit. I know and the Bible teaches that things change after their kind. Micro evolution is true. Macro may be to some extent. What I mean is that there is a God who has directed and designed the frameworks and dynamics that any evolution operates from and within. In summary with God a conscience derived from a universal source explains commonality perfectly. Without God it is much harder to regardless the attempt is still made anyway. I was not making an argument for creation apart from some type of evolution.

Are you talking about animals or humans here? Because there is only one species of hominids that survived to modern times, and the physical characteristics are superficial in comparison. Throughout most of the time humans were living during the Pliocene Epoch, they moved about in small bands of extended families, gathering and hunting for food. The life of hunter/gatherers typically requires good cooperation, and that would have an impact on morality. One of the reasons why civilization is in deep crisis today is because technology and excessive materialism have increased our isolation and dependence on others. I don't think it's any coincidence that the rise of the ethic of individualism began first in the United States, where there had been lots of open spaces and resources available (after pushing out natives in many instances), and that individual rights and freedoms became more important than social wellbeing and responsibility to others.

You are being far too specific and narrow for my example. I meant if you look around and think evolution did all this then what do we see. Complete diversity.
If that same force produced morals I would think it would also be far more diverse. I do not think it did but must address the issue if asked. I do not think even if evolution was the only force we would have the morals we do. I think "nature red in tooth and claw" would be more accurate if it was the driving force. It does not account for Mother Theresa's, Gandhi’s, or Christ. Altruism is not in many cases beneficial to an individual.

I already mentioned before that we do not have the capacity to step outside our physical limitations to recognize God. After all, how do we know it's not really Satan appearing as a being of light?

The only way a concept of Satan is relevant is if you learned about him from God. I do not get the point. Are you saying there is no way to know that the Bible is from God? There are many ways to evaluate and test the concept of God.

And you probably didn't want to answer the questions either! These and other problems are a useful way of showing how complicated and often conflicting our own moral judgments are, because we use a combination of higher order processing with unconscious emotional reactions.

No I did not want to answer. I do not understand the significance of that supposed paradox. I have heard it many times before. I figured it was best to not comment.

Who's having the baby? I think right from the outset, that if something is happening in your body, you should have the ultimate say over what happens.

The logic of that is complex and even if it wasn't would be when another life is concerned. In a society that would condemn a Mother to death who killed a child ten minutes after birth and would march for the right to kill it 20 minutes earlier there can be no clear understanding concerning this issue. It is best to err on the side of life.

In abortion, you're arguing that unconscious, developing life which hasn't been born and established any interests to preserve in this world, should be considered having equal rights with a woman who has lived for many years,

I am saying there is no line that can be drawn so let's not do so. Besides that why the number of years would lived make one claim better than another. It actually should be the other way around by logic. Without God years lived, relationships formed, consciousness, and rights of any kind make no sense. They are merely arbitrary social constructs that have no actual justification. They can also be taken away for no less valid reason by another stronger culture. Some cultures love their neibors and some eat them. The decisions were arrived at through equally valid methods without God.

That's good to hear! Many who call themselves prolife these days are not willing to make those exceptions....I'm thinking in particular of that idiot Congressman who thinks women have the ability to shut down the fertility process during rape. It does show that we have to make value judgments in cases where there are competing rights - like between the fetus and the pregnant woman.

I withdraw my accusation that you were mischaracterizing my position. I see you have recalibrated. Sorry. By the way I am sure there are a few but every conservative/Christian I know agrees with the rape and health exception.

Don't forget that punishment for violating any of those commandments was death, whether it was murder,

To address these issues at all requires massive amounts of time and effort. If you are that interested you can make a thread and I will elaborate fully but I just can't get into something so complex in this thread. Things are far different from the simplistic descriptions you are giving.

It's relevant because what if you're wrong? What if God doesn't appear to save humanity from the brink of disaster? How many failed predictions of the 2nd Coming have we had so far? Why should I believe that any future sign will appear?

If there is no God coming I do not see any hope at all and no reason to save this planet or care what happens to a hundred generations down the road. We will be dust and will not care about anything at that time. I really never understood this love affair with man's future and the planet without God. Your end result is the same either way. I will not ever be aware if we stopped carbon emissions or not. I think it more benevolent considering the direction the world is progressing towards to stop endless generations from having to suffer through it. The same way God did in the flood. The Bible has never made a failed prediction of any kind. Man has. The Bible is about 2000 wins - 0 losses on prophecy. I did not understand the future sign statement.

I think it is relevant to examine fundamentalist's opinions on the environment because so many are on the side of rampant, uncontrolled exploitation....like Sen. James Inhofe, who serves as the oil conglomerates paid spokesman in the U.S. Senate, and says stupid things like climate change disaster can't happen because God promised not to destroy the world again after the Great Flood. Whether he actually believes this or not is immaterial; the real issue is that he is a powerful politician who has even used his influence to harass and threaten climatologists like NASA's James Hansen.

Very often these experts should be harassed. I remember in the 80s the world's most omnipotent climatologists got together and went before the UN and said global cooling was going to kill us all. Now it's global warming. Of course the planet is warming. It does that every so often with our without cars. The sea produces way more than 90% of the CO2; unless you have a giant sponge messing with cars won't help. In fact if you actually blow up Al Gores graph you will see that CO2 follows heat not the other way around. When the sea heats up it puts out more CO2. OF course he shrunk it so no one could tell and his house uses ten times the electricity of a normal one. I am getting off topic and I do not wish to debate global warming in depth.

That's true that our universe ends in heat death (although there is another theory that it will expand to a certain size and velocity and suddenly disintegrate....same result though), I would like some assurance that the future will look better for those coming after us...that is all!

If nothing has any ultimate meaning, purpose, or reason then who cares. If we are simply a biological anomaly why shouldn't beetles be in charge. Without God (even with God) apparently things are not getting better. The only hope for future justice and bliss is God. We are simply making better ways to kill each other and in greater numbers as well as progressively throwing away morals as needed which maximize suffering. There is no hope with man alone. That is exactly where the pre flood world was. It is a real wonder and possibly a true miracle we haven't wiped ourselves out. We came within a hairs breath at least twice so far. Once a single Russian radar tech stopped it based on a guess (1983 I think). By the way I am not saying that the flood was literal or symbolic. The principles it contains are just as true either way. I was in the military and we have ways of killing people that you can’t even begin to imagine. We have made diseases that eat antibiotics.

 

[McBell]

Prove murder is actually wrong without God.

Murder is wrong.
God does not exist.
Therefore, murder is wrong without god.

now before you start whining about my using your own line of reasoning to show the exact opposite of what you used it to show remember the age old adage:

whats good for the goose is good for the gander
​

 

[1robin]

Murder is wrong.
God does not exist.
Therefore, murder is wrong without god.

now before you start whining about my using your own line of reasoning to show the exact opposite of what you used it to show remember the age old adage:

whats good for the goose is good for the gander
​

I am in awe of your undeniable justification, towering intellect, and inescapable logic. What can be more scholarly and intellectually satasfying than "good for the goose" as proof positive. Of course I kid (mostly).

I said prove murder is wrong without God not state it is.
Care to try again?

 

[PolyHedral]

I am in awe of your undeniable justification, towering intellect, and inescapable logic. What can be more scholarly and intellectually satasfying than "good for the goose" as proof positive. Of course I kid (mostly).

I said prove murder is wrong without God not state it is.
Care to try again?

Morality should be symmetric, as this is the best strategy to the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
I do not want to die.
Therefore, murder is wrong in general.

As for God, there is little evidence to suggest he exists.

 

[Photonic]

Morality should be symmetric, as this is the best strategy to the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
I do not want to die.
Therefore, murder is wrong in general.

As for God, there is little evidence to suggest he exists.

Would go so far as to say there is no verifiable evidence that can be attributed to the existence of a deity.