tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post9177112740808670176..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Massimo's picksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49079196523610605452010-03-22T14:07:55.901-04:002010-03-22T14:07:55.901-04:00"I’d be glad to respond to you with evidences..."I’d be glad to respond to you with evidences for the Christian faith and demonstrations that the existence of moral absolutes inevitably lead to the conclusion of God, but I’m really not sure what you want" Several times during this conversation, people have asked you to provide them with evidence to substantiate you claims that moral absolutes inevitably lead to the conclusion of God. Rather than actually providing evidences to substantiate your claims, you merely side step the challenges and claim that you don't know what they are want. What they want is for you to provide evidence to substantiate your claim that moral absolution can not exist without a belief in a divine law giver. If you cannot substantiate you claims with immutable evidence than they are baseless statements of opinions that are a product of your personal beliefs and convictions. I think the overall question is what moral absolutes does christianity introduce that have not already been introduced by any other religion? <br /><br />"science is finding that our planet demonstrates profound design." I would imagine that you are speaking of christian science, no less. Of course, how could I know. You've provided yet another baseless statement of opinion with nothing to substantiate it except your own words. <br /><br />"Although I agree with you that I “do not know all there is to know about everything,” I think I do know some things, and with the little I do know, I must somehow try to illuminate the surrounding darkness." Whether you claim to know "something" about moral absolutes, or about God, what you know is merely the product of your religious education in the bible. Outside of the bible, the subject of God, and moral absolutes is obviously a subject that you are incapable of substantiating.<br /><br />"despite the fact that they lack knowledge “about everything.” Would you deny the physicist the right to specify these absolutes, even if their theories change from time to time?" There is a big difference between a physicist theories and a christians theories. A physicist theories are based on his understanding of tangible nature. A christians theories are based on his understanding of a book that was written by men thousands of years ago. A christians understanding is based on a religion founded in superstition, lack of scientific understanding, and tradition. You can't possible expect your audience to give christian theories the same respect that they would give physicists. Thats like comparing a doctor to some guy in a grass skirt and white face paint from the jungles of africa. Theres no comparison. If you expect any rational human being to take anything you say seriously when in terms of moral absolutes, you will have to do a lot better than simply saying that we are moral because knowing God magically makes us care about people. Not only is that oversimplistic, it is completely irrational. What you are going to have understand is that God is inherently a faith based idea, founded on hope and faith as evidence of his existence. You can hold that there is proof and evidence all you want, but the reality is that your evidence is based on a book written by men. You can try to claim that the men of the bible spoke the words of God himself, but what evidence do you have to support that other than the words of those very men themselves written in the bible? Religion and God are inspirations, but not the bases for morality. When religion and God become the bases for morality, history has shown that man loses touch with reality and in doing so, loses touch with the reality of morality.Dusk Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653535668051790357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17527456625923892702010-03-22T13:18:36.375-04:002010-03-22T13:18:36.375-04:00"There are literally thousands of reasons to ..."There are literally thousands of reasons to believe in the God of the Bible." This could be said of any relgion. You mention the Jews return to Israel as if it were some proof of a fulfilled prophecy. As if people haven't been driven from their land before in history. Just because a group of people are driven from their land, and they somehow manage to find themselves back on this land, it doesn't mean that it was through some sort of supernatural intervention. That would be like saying I lost my house to the bank, but managed to eventually get it back. This must be Gods hand. That is the type of oversimplification that makes superstitious beliefs like that look childish. "Neurologically, with have trillions of neural connections that our “closest relatives” lack. Evolution clearly lacks the time to account for these" First off, this is something that you are attempting to state as fact without actually providing your readers with a source to check your information for validity. Secondly, you intend to disprove evolution by without actually providing any substantial evidence to support your claims. Is the "supposed" lack of evidence supposed to prove that God blinked everything into existence like some bad "I dream of Genie" rerun. Not only is that rediculous, it can not be substantiated by any sort of respectable evidence that is not the bible. If you intend to make statements like this you can at least offer up some sort of proof to support your statements otherwise they are just opinions. "If you try to throw all religions into the same bag, you are being illegitimately indiscriminate" As if it is a bad thing to come to the realization that pretty much every religion is trying to do the same thing. Almost every religion believes in a higher power of some kind. They all believe that you should lead a good life, and that there are consequences for our actions, whether it is karmic, or sanctioned by God. What good can come from being discriminative when God is subject that no man can claim to be an expert on. The reality is we could all be wrong, and we could all be right. Accepting otherwise only proves that religion itself is based on pride, the pride of thinking that you are right about who or what God is. The pride of thinking that everyone else in the world is wrong. It is this thinking that makes Christianity itself inherently discriminative, prideful, and even egotistical. "Must you resort to put-downs: “And because neither you nor they ever test your faith honestly against outside evidence" Are you afraid to approach the reality that you can no more prove that you are right than any other religion? This is no put down, it is a challenge. A challenge that can never be won. What makes your religion any more valid than Hinduism, a religion that has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity? Are you afraid to approach the fact that outside of your bible, your arguments are baseless opinions?<br />"consider these requirements for moral absolutism" Where did these requirments come from? Who designed them? What authority do they have on the subject of moral absolution? "Yes, we can reason our way to moral absolutes if there is first a basis in existence for these absolutes!" What evidence do you have to prove the contrary? If you have no evidence, then this is just an eloquently stated opinion. "Acknowledging moral absolutes is to acknowledge a transcendent law-Giver" What evidence do you have to validate this statement? Where was this acknowledgment of a transcendent law giver during the crusades, during the catholic church child molestation fiasco, and during religious fueled homosexual hate crimes? Either something was immutable, not transcendent, or lack universality, at least by your unfounded standards. Christianity can no more lay claim to moral absolution than anyone else, especially since they have committed atrocities while supposedly under the divine supervision of an omnipotent law giver.Dusk Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653535668051790357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-386305807615425702010-03-22T12:27:39.800-04:002010-03-22T12:27:39.800-04:00"Morality arises both from the nature and the..."Morality arises both from the nature and the will of God." This statement, although beautiful, is completely without bases. What evidence do you have, other than the bible, that supports your claim that morality arises from the nature and the will of God.<br /><br />"You deny an ontological and rational right and wrong and are left with only arbitrary biological and pragmatic considerations." This statement is a classic example of supernatural bias. You attempt to somehow prove that morality can only have originated from God under the deluded assumption that man is incapable of being truly moral without God. <br />However, pragmatism alone is an inadequate rational basis for morality. In essence, it says that “I can be thoroughly good by being selfish. If I tend to my own welfare, I will naturally love others.”This definition of pragmatism is based on your opinion and not an actual definition of pragmatism. Pragmatism is a practical approach to problems, ideologies, or propositions. Its states that something is something is true if it works. Your definition of pragmatism attempts to make pragmatism out to be something negative, as if it is wrong to approach a search for practical approaches to morality. <br />"Morality sometimes demands self-sacrifice, even death." This is exactly the type of thinking that makes what you say impractical. If morality comes from God, and you claim man can not be moral without God, then in a sense, you are claiming that morality is God. By saying that morality demands death, you take the concept of morality to a level of dangerous extremes only found in cults. This is exactly the type of thinking that inspired the crusades, and pretty much every religious war today. This is the type of think that resulted in the deaths of so many people in Waco Texas. Morality demands that you merely practice empathy. Do unto others. Your bases for morality is founded on a delusion that you are in some sort of war against an unseen enemy. The reason you are so willing to die, or sacrifice yourself, is because you believe that is what God calls you to. If everyone thought like that, the world would be filled with superstitious religious zealots with a death wish. Seeing that your religious beliefs are so extreme in nature, it is only logical that you would be so opposed to the practical nature of pragmatism because of the pure fact that it doesn't offer the delusions of grandeur that a christian lifestyle does. Of course I speak of the fact that Christianity attempts to make everyone feel as though they are spiritual soldiers in war that cannot be seen, fighting an enemy that is supposedly responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. Just by reading some of your examples of pragmatism, it is clear that you do not have a clear understanding of what it entails. "I can be thoroughly good by being selfish". This has to be the most inaccurate representation of pragmatism I have ever heard of. The question I have for you is what is your source for your claim that the history of humankind has ruled decisively against pragmatism? One thing I notice is that you make broad sweeping generalizations, and baseless statements of opinion that you wish pass of facts. <br /><br /><br />"Regarding the Bible, there are many compelling evidences – miracles, fulfilled prophecies, internal and external coherence, and changed lives/societies." This statement of opinion is based on your perspective. While you claim that there are evidences, I highly doubt that you are actually able to provide any that couldn't be considered coincidences, uneducated deductions, or superstitious nonsense.Dusk Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653535668051790357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29044478961975695002010-02-26T12:53:50.365-05:002010-02-26T12:53:50.365-05:00Joe,
the link should be back soon, there is no tr...Joe,<br /><br />the link should be back soon, there is no transcript, as far as I know.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37198019318412969602010-02-26T11:36:33.852-05:002010-02-26T11:36:33.852-05:00Massimo, the link to your debate appears broken at...Massimo, the link to your debate appears broken at the moment. I know, it's older, but I was hoping to track down a transcript of the actual debate. Speaking of which, do you know if there is one?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258962846411519131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-311961150725360272010-02-21T17:05:41.689-05:002010-02-21T17:05:41.689-05:00"Everything bad in the world that happened af..."Everything bad in the world that happened after 1859 is Darwin's fault."<br /><br />One's environment doesn't have to shape ones values, but if you believe that is the only thing that can shape values then you do have a real problem. I don't think I'd shove that responsibility (if you even wanna call it "responsibility"?) off on Darwin tho. Situational/environmental ethics might have formed with him or without him. Easy believism.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1320569348005391272010-02-18T13:05:43.958-05:002010-02-18T13:05:43.958-05:00Shorter Caliana: Everything bad in the world that ...Shorter Caliana: Everything bad in the world that happened after 1859 is Darwin's fault.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40526953159791037522010-02-18T11:36:22.333-05:002010-02-18T11:36:22.333-05:00You mean all the anger and insults JUST BECAUSE so...You mean all the anger and insults JUST BECAUSE some people do not want to be forced to conclude that Darwinism/Situational Ethics and Hitler have a connection to each other? Yeah, that'd be a good reason to quit if I ever saw one! <br /><br />I might insist that we stop the conversation too if I felt cornered but I don't so I suggest Derek that you build your case on facts not emotions centering around things that you don't like to discuss. <br /><br />MAN UP, bro.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58515537037128779382010-02-17T16:48:44.407-05:002010-02-17T16:48:44.407-05:00I agree. Let's throw in the towel!I agree. Let's throw in the towel!Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63607124140903002862010-02-17T15:46:50.311-05:002010-02-17T15:46:50.311-05:00Oh right, if the world isn't black or white, c...Oh right, if the world isn't black or white, caliana, its left or right. I keep forgetting these boxes of perspective with you.<br /><br />Nevermind that - I just used politics as an example for a larger point, which of course you missed. The kind of hysteria that pours out of you, caliana, is just exhausting.<br /><br />MannsWord,<br /><br />I've read my bible. I am sure when I get home I can turn to scripture that has the Israelites ordered to exterminate certain groups while leaving their women for spoils. Try to interpret it with all the sugar coating you want, but don't lie to me about it and say it only sounds like genocide...<br /><br />And we've already covered 'darwinism'. It doesn't say anything about itself. There is no holy book, no manifesto. So why continue this strawman?<br /><br />You are becoming a nasty individual to continue talking to with the crap you continually spout as if previous discussions have never occurred between us. <br /><br />If this lying for jesus continues, lets just end this conversation right here and now as I'm not interested in repeating myself.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15284815253246863802010-02-17T15:40:05.398-05:002010-02-17T15:40:05.398-05:00The Fruits of Naturalism:
I just got this quote f...The Fruits of Naturalism:<br /><br />I just got this quote from the blog: “Uncommon Descent,” and thought it might be apropos:<br /><br />• Jeffrey Dahmer: “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” [Biography, "Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within," A&E, 1996.]Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8388885719832589942010-02-17T14:54:07.768-05:002010-02-17T14:54:07.768-05:00"But even then, it doesn't necessarily me..."But even then, it doesn't necessarily mean anything if you've made all the 'right moves' if your education leads you to develop, say, economic policies which maintain wealth for the already wealthy and maintain poverty for the already poor."<br /><br />That is a total lie propagated by the left. The right does not think that way at all. Of course it makes good press tho and keeps the two sides nice and polarized, doesn't it. <br /><br />If social justice really were the highest good one wouldn't think that the majority of abortion clinics were in poor(er) neighborhoods, would you.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26848061483113244102010-02-17T14:31:41.791-05:002010-02-17T14:31:41.791-05:00caliana,
I do think people with an education shou...caliana,<br /><br />I do think people with an education should be held to higher standards - and they are, certainly they are - its no cake walk to teach at places like Harvard or Yale.<br /><br />But even then, it doesn't necessarily mean anything if you've made all the 'right moves' if your education leads you to develop, say, economic policies which maintain wealth for the already wealthy and maintain poverty for the already poor. People have done this and continue to do this all in the guise of being held to higher standards. The administrations and cabinets of US officials in decades past aren't filled with college dropouts, ya know. Yet we still make wars, install policies which benefit a few over many and just do a lot of bad things (maybe we don't see them as bad things now, but down the road).<br /><br />You trying to say that all these people were led astray because way back in freshman year of college they had an intro to biology class?<br /><br />Come on, calina, even you can't believe that.<br /><br />I'm not saying we shouldn't have our most talented educated in key positions, I'm simply saying things are more complicated than that.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32618521067853096922010-02-17T13:48:34.935-05:002010-02-17T13:48:34.935-05:00Darek,
You responded, “No where in evolutionary t...Darek,<br /><br />You responded, “No where in evolutionary theory can you find the answer to which race is better. That blond hair and blue eyes are more pure. The whites are better than blacks. That men are fitter than women. That homosexuality is to be weeded out. Its the people who think about these things - often times crunching through opposing, different, polarized views, who are the ones with the baggage and the problems.”<br /><br />Indeed, evolution doesn’t say these things. It just leaves a moral vacuum where these types of things can be encouraged.<br /><br />While I agree with you that horrible things have been done in the name of religion, the Bible itself stands against genocide (We’re created in the image of God – all of us!), sexism (both man and woman are created in the image of God), and racism (Out of one set of parents came all humanity!) This is more than can be said for Darwinism.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82366604839047024922010-02-17T13:35:45.193-05:002010-02-17T13:35:45.193-05:00You do not think people with an advanced education...You do not think people with an advanced education are not to be held to a higher standard? With increased awareness ought to come increased responsibility. <br /><br />That's only sensible. <br /><br />That fact that so many Phds are not pro-life is does not mean that being pro-life is "wrong" it just means that no matter what your level of education is, you can still be led around by the nose. <br /><br />Education then is no defense or assurance against deception.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82110712243992649712010-02-17T13:03:16.115-05:002010-02-17T13:03:16.115-05:00caliana,
Where do YOU get off talking about a GOO...caliana,<br /><br />Where do YOU get off talking about a GOOD EDUCATION? (see, capitalization didn't make that sentence any more direct)<br /><br />The reputation that you've built so far is one of a person who resorts to extreme examples as a means to build principle, rule of law and morality. A good education doesn't necessarily mean anything, caliana. I think it helps, but it is only one factor of many that influences a person. Environment is another (being born in wealth vs poverty, for instance). Social pressures. As I've said to you elsewhere on this site, the world isn't black and white as you seem to think it is. I mean, it seems you'd have me believe that if only people had god in their lives and people never knew an inkling about things like evolution, all the problems of the world would fade away... But like MannsWord, in order for that belief to exist, you have to ignore much of what we know about the real world, nevermind its history.<br /><br />In this respect, I don't have to marginalize you - you do it yourself with such a narrow perspective.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90307155904645771192010-02-17T12:16:06.862-05:002010-02-17T12:16:06.862-05:00C: "Do you still maintain primates offer us a...C: "Do you still maintain primates offer us a great model for ethics?<br /><br />D: "Read those links again."<br /><br />Derek, I am totally aware that people do bad things to their offspring and to other defenseless individuals. We are responsible X 1000 because we have complete KNOWLEDGE of the horrendous nature of those deeds. AND THE MORE EDUCATED AND AWARE THAT YOU ARE incidentally the more responsible one ought to be to know this behavior is not only unethical but completely out of the realm of anything we as humans ought be engaging in. !!!! But no, then there is reality, the reality of the college prof who just murdered three of her colleagues because of not making tenure.<br /><br /> A good education ought to be added reason to be intensely ethical. But because of excuses like ones you list above,(our "meaningful" connection to primates and so on) it is not.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60543985479329199442010-02-17T11:27:20.323-05:002010-02-17T11:27:20.323-05:00MannsWord,
Yes. Facts and theories have implicati...MannsWord,<br /><br />Yes. Facts and theories have implications. If we live in a world where the status quo is that the earth is flat. Discovering that the earth is round brings baggage.<br /><br />If we live in a world where the status quo is that god created all things. Discovering how things (really) came about brings baggage.<br /><br />The problem is - and I'm not denying anything by saying this - is that the facts themselves, the theories themselves, are not bringing this baggage. No where in evolutionary theory can you find the answer to which race is better. That blond hair and blue eyes are more pure. The whites are better than blacks. That men are fitter than women. That homosexuality is to be weeded out. Its the people who think about these things - often times crunching through opposing, different, polarized views, who are the ones with the baggage and the problems.<br /><br />Not to mention, ironically - it is religious rhetoric and literature which has brought those ideas and upheld them - slavery, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, genocide. Shall I provide a supporting quotation for each of a religious person in favor? I don't think there is a need, you know as well as I do <br /><br />That you fail to understand this and use quotes to perpetuate falsehoods while ignoring basic facts is appalling at worst, intellectually dishonest at least.<br /><br />There is no distancing of any ideas. There are simply those who understand evolution and those who think they do. Look at you and caliana, for instance.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77417416599503770992010-02-17T10:52:32.197-05:002010-02-17T10:52:32.197-05:00Darek,
Evolution carries much philosophical bagga...Darek,<br /><br />Evolution carries much philosophical baggage. For one thing, science has no way of eliminating the possibility that additional forces might be driving a phenomenon. Thus, the notion of “Random mutations” cannot be scientifically established, but instead is philosophically derived!<br /><br />You also deny that this theory has a tendency to produce certain negative moral fruitage. So let me quote one of your own in this regard, the evolutionist Karl Giberson, in “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,”<br /><br />o “[Evolutionist] Ernst Haeckel nudged the racism of the Third Reich along its malignant road by suggesting that the various human races were like stages in the embryonic development of the fetus…”You must draw [a line] between the most highly developed civilized people on the one hand and the crudest primitive people on the other and unite the latter with animals.” 76)<br /><br />o “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared Haeckel’s ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.”<br /><br />o “The Holocaust would have happened with or without Charles Darwin. There can be no doubt however, that the Nazi campaign against the Jews was assisted via rhetoric and rationalization with arguments from social Darwinism. (79)”<br /><br />Although modern evolutionists distance themselves from these ideas, they are nevertheless still endemic in the nature of the theory.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17336222186880577452010-02-17T08:44:07.116-05:002010-02-17T08:44:07.116-05:00The problem here is that evolution is more than ju...<i>The problem here is that evolution is more than just a collection of scientific findings. It also reflects the naturalistic worldview – RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection. Therefore, as you stated, morality “would just be someone's opinion.” That’s not very reassuring when we are confronted with genocide.</i><br /><br />MannsWord, how can you maintain this bizarre notion that without a god concept, without a 'supreme leader', if you will, that all of us are then the equivalent of chickens with their heads cut off, ready to do bad things at the drop of a hat? You know this isn't true. Are not those that do have a belief in god committing bad things? Dare I say genocide in certain parts of the world? Last time I checked these people weren't soaked in evolutionary literature.<br /><br />Your extrapolation that they are, in one way or another, is just that - your extrapolation. Whether its based in fact is another thing (which, of course, it isn't because you don't even understand the very subject you claim is a part of a worldview).<br /><br />In other cases, where there isn't violence, clearly, people who don't see the world the way you do are doing quite fine - whether they are christians as well and just don't share the same viewpoints you do, of a different religion or no religion at all. Are not these peoples' attempt to answer those same questions above simply their opinions? I think you would agree actually that they are - because according to you, they have the wrong answers. Its just that you refuse to believe that your answers are in the same bag.<br /><br />The problem is you want something thats based in fact (like evolution). You would love to be able to give me the kind of falsification that science can provide. But you can't. And its clear to me now that you know you can't. You can (and have) just sat there and told me a lot of things you believe, quoted certain parts of a book, have made certain emotional pleas about how you feel, but are unable to say anything convincing that can't be challenged in fact or with a greater range of experience and education.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34824014034098440552010-02-17T06:21:29.291-05:002010-02-17T06:21:29.291-05:00Perspicio,
You wrote, “There's nothing to be ...Perspicio,<br /><br />You wrote, “There's nothing to be gained by arguing with those who conflate conviction with fact.”<br /><br />However, shouldn’t conviction and fact go together? Shouldn’t we be “convicted” when the facts spell out victimization? I think that you are assuming a purist stance and throw all religions/belief systems into the same bag. Indeed, there are conflicts between religion and science when a religion adopts the dictum, “I will only entertain things of faith/spirit and not physical evidences.” Of course, there are religions like this which believe that this is a world of illusion – the physical world does not exist – and consequently not worth investigating. Other religions would have it that our main task is to transcend this physical, evil world, while postmodernism maintains that “facts” are just the product of our subjective mentalities.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.<br /><br />Indeed, the Biblical faiths, especially Judaism and Christianity, which are rigorous belief systems, requiring evidences and proofs. For example, the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15 permeates Biblical thinking: <br /><br />• “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”<br /><br />In like manner, Jesus warned his followers to NOT believe Him without corroborating evidences (John 5:31). Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, faith is not something that is baseless, but rather a stance that is required in light of the confirming evidences. In other words, we believe because we have compelling evidences to believe – we attempt to join conviction to fact.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35104864848786052922010-02-17T06:11:49.332-05:002010-02-17T06:11:49.332-05:00Darek,
You just proved my point in saying, “Anywa...Darek,<br /><br />You just proved my point in saying, “Anyway, theres a big reason why evolution can't answer those [moral] questions - because any answer posited would just be someone's opinion. Just like each of your points trying to connect a godless lifestyle with accepting certain scientific conclusions.”<br /><br />The problem here is that evolution is more than just a collection of scientific findings. It also reflects the naturalistic worldview – RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection. Therefore, as you stated, morality “would just be someone's opinion.” That’s not very reassuring when we are confronted with genocide.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77552834857598872772010-02-17T00:52:48.060-05:002010-02-17T00:52:48.060-05:00caliana,
I can read what you say just fine withou...caliana,<br /><br />I can read what you say just fine without all the capitalization. Just a thought.<br /><br />Let me do something for you:<br /><br /><i>primates also leave their sick and dying behind</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331732,00.html" rel="nofollow">See here</a><br /><br /><i>(and harm them occasionally) </i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=11988767" rel="nofollow">and here</a><br /><br /><i>and have been known to possibly eat their offspring.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/mother-charged-with-murdering-son-and-eating-his-brain/story-e6frev00-1225755386495" rel="nofollow">and here</a><br /><br /><i>Do you still maintain primates offer us a great model for ethics?</i><br /><br />Read those links again.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86920077387190243242010-02-17T00:37:37.407-05:002010-02-17T00:37:37.407-05:00*one long sigh*
MannsWord,
Again, you don't ...*one long sigh*<br /><br />MannsWord,<br /><br />Again, you don't understand 'Darwinism'. Evolution has as much to say about what is best for society, good vs evil, what is a good life, what is best for happiness, etc., as Sarah Palin does on Russian foreign policy. Understand? Lets get at least that much straight. I'm not going to sit here and educate you on evolutionary biology - which is an education both you can caliana seriously need, it would clear out a lot of garbage and misconceptions you have stored up on the subject. I mean, an intro class would be all you'd need, frankly.<br /><br />Anyway, theres a big reason why evolution can't answer those questions - because any answer posited would just be someone's opinion. Just like each of your points trying to connect a godless lifestyle with accepting certain scientific conclusions (a science that doesn't even have anything to say about lifestyles. Hint: there is a reason why all biologist aren't atheists, ok?).<br /><br />Its amazing to me that you are trying to lecture me on David Humes' logic when you've so badly mangled it yourself in previous posts within this thread. Get over yourself. Try reading Hume again - for the first time.<br /><br />Leff never declared himself an atheist, but I understand why you would want this kind of figure of authority. Try honesty instead, MannsWord. Regardless, this notion that without a father-figure (even as adults) that we're doomed is as childish as it sounds. Leff may have been a good lawyer, but that doesn't always necessarily help, does it?<br /><br />By the way - I believe Leff was from Yale, not Duke - not that it really matters to you but if you are going to repeat this elsewhere, you may want to make a note.<br /><br />The problem you have, MannsWord, is that as much as you'd like to have what you say mean something real - it doesn't. Its so vague as to be meaningless. What possible frame of reference can you establish to prove anything you've claimed in those three points? You have no correlating evidence to give me. I mean, the majority of the world's population is of one religion or another - are you saying the godless population is the cause of all ills? Most ills? Is the godless population of the world waiting in the wings to install a mass eugenics program? Are they all biologists? They all understand Darwin?<br /><br />Maybe its because the world just isn't Christian - thats it! Thats the answer! But... when you think about it, countries (like the US) with a high population of christians aren't necessarily great models of happiness and morality, are they? Wait a minute - I see now, we just all have to think like you. How stupid of us.<br /><br />Back on earth - in the real world, countries with a high population of godless are doing quite well in terms of happiness - especially in comparison to the United States.<br /><br />Again - you want what you say to reflect some form of reality. But it doesn't and the most basic form of investigation on any of the matters you are trying to get at reflect a different reality than the fantasy you're trying to perpetuate.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34735937242875384432010-02-16T22:55:38.912-05:002010-02-16T22:55:38.912-05:00"Ignorance is king, many would not prosper by..."Ignorance is king, many would not prosper by its abdication." -Walter M. Miller, <i>A Canticle for Leibowitz</i><br /><br />There's nothing to be gained by arguing with those who conflate conviction with fact.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.com