|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 10:15:48 GMT
Well DPR, IF there is no God, or at the very least if we were not created by Him, then we are merely evolved apes (or penguins, amoebas, whatever ) with no sense of "right" or "wrong," as that cannot have evolved but had to have been "placed" there in our minds... To quote Darwin: "survival of the FITTEST" is the mode of Evolution. NOT moral values. In fact, moral values contradict Evolution, i.e. "if I like your wife, why can't I just take your head off and drag her back to my cave?" (just to give a simple, quite horrific example) Our genetic upbringing is that we are a social animal and we need other people to survive. As such moral values become very important, because they help the group know and trust that the other people in the group won't do certain things, which means that the best hunter in the group can leave his wife at camp with the best fighter and be sure that she will still be his wife when he gets back. Or that his children will still be alive when he gets back. Thinking about it, it can probably be argued that the 3 traits that have enabled us to be as successful as a species as we are are 1) our ability to create tools 2) our ability to communicate abstract ideas to each other and 3) the fact that we are social animals. Well, the "built-in" social values we posses couldn't have evolved from a pile of soupy rock...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 10:16:45 GMT
But that would only apply to their own little pack, they wouldn't extend those "values" towards other little packs... There is such thing as parallel evolution... But that was not the point - that was that you said moral values are contradictory to evolution, which I dissent on. The development of moral values can be a trait which benefits evolution, as it at least helps towards the survival of the species by making it more successful than others who have none. It's certainly not a single salient factor in the complexity of evolution of the mind, but not one to completely deny. See my post just above this one.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 10:16:45 GMT
@uberil - I believe that if you looked at the original lists of the 7 deadly sins the pride one would actually say - Being prideful is a sin, not pride is a sin. I still find it intresting that murder is considered a deadly sin, but (according to the christian bible) killing is against the 4th commandment. That would be the 6th commandment. The 4th was to "remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." unless you're catholic, in which case it's the 5th.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 10:18:00 GMT
That would be the 6th commandment. The 4th was to "remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." unless you're catholic, in which case it's the 5th. Ah, I didn't know that.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 10:18:48 GMT
Might help some of you to read my Cycle Of Civilisation notes - and purpose of religion notes. You all know where they are What DPR said.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 10:21:29 GMT
Well, the "built-in" social values we posses couldn't have evolved from a pile of soupy rock... I don't see why not. After all if you assume that dna can change in very slight ways, then it must be possible for dna to change from creating a virus to creating a person. It might take uncounted steps to do so, but it is certainly possible. Esp. if the changes make the dna more likely to out perform it's rivals.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 10:23:39 GMT
Might help some of you to read my Cycle Of Civilisation notes - and purpose of religion notes. You all know where they are What DPR said. Then I suggest reading the Cycle again may be a good idea for you, Dragon... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 10:23:53 GMT
unless you're catholic, in which case it's the 5th. Ah, I didn't know that. Catholics don't have any prohibition against idol worship though (the 10th commandment has been split into 2 to compensate). And the Jews have thou shall not commit murder instead of kill.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 10:28:53 GMT
The whateverth commandment is still "Thou shalt not commit murder" NOT "Thou shalt not kill."
And we have no 'built in' social values. The idea that we do is what is largely responsible for the growing 'Underclass' in the West, and in Britain particularly. ALL moral and ethical values are the result of social indoctrination. Failure to raise children with the values of ther society results in huge problems, as has been so often demonstrated.
'Human' as we understand the term is not what we are born as, it is what we are made into.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 14, 2009 10:39:22 GMT
I said that without an afterlife, life is extremely short, and in a way pointless, since there's nothing after this life.
Yes, individual life is - and so what? Is 'the point' the individual or the species? If not selfish, it is at least an ego-centric view. To the individual the timeline matters - the species has a totally different, much longer timeline; 'nature' as a whole an even longer one. To see Man, whether individual or species, as a creator's ultimate purpose is not without a certain arrogance.
If there's no judgement of your sins in an afterlife (since there's no afterlife at all), you might as well just life a destructive, selfish life.
Well, you actually may - will potentially not be a long one though...
Jest aside, what is defined sin is prone to differing definitions in varying circumstances. Transferring judgement to an afterlife is an easy way of putting fear into an individual, stating that while it can potentially escape worldly consequences, it will be caught and tried 'later'. Believe it or not - and that is what criminals do, they don't believe or care for 'later consequences', and thus the system fails for those individuals.
The other way works similarily - if you have a miserable life, you can find 'salvation' later (whatever exactly that may be) - believe it or not.
In a billion years from now, our discussion may well be irrelevant - in a few billion years more, the planet will be engulfed in an exploding sun and it will be irrelevant to the universe - which may then still live.
Sol 3 may not be a creator's purpose, who knows? 15 billion or 6.000 years - they may both be irrelevant to a 'timeless' being...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 11:49:42 GMT
Well, the "built-in" social values we posses couldn't have evolved from a pile of soupy rock... I don't see why not. After all if you assume that dna can change in very slight ways, then it must be possible for dna to change from creating a virus to creating a person. It might take uncounted steps to do so, but it is certainly possible. Esp. if the changes make the dna more likely to out perform it's rivals. I honestly don't think something as intricate as a living organism can "evolve" from something completely non-living. And even if it could, it probably wouldn't reproduce. A virus needs a living cell to invade, otherwise it's lifeless.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 11:53:14 GMT
The whateverth commandment is still "Thou shalt not commit murder" NOT "Thou shalt not kill." And we have no 'built in' social values. The idea that we do is what is largely responsible for the growing 'Underclass' in the West, and in Britain particularly. ALL moral and ethical values are the result of social indoctrination. Failure to raise children with the values of ther society results in huge problems, as has been so often demonstrated. 'Human' as we understand the term is not what we are born as, it is what we are made into. We are made, but we are made by the people around us, especially our parents. And they were "made" by their parents, who in turn were made by their parents... It all goes back to the beginning eventually. A Creationist (at least a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish one) places Adam at the way top of genealogy. And of course, God created Adam with some knowledge already. But not the knowledge of Good and Evil, he got that later on (by eating the fruit).
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 11:58:25 GMT
I said that without an afterlife, life is extremely short, and in a way pointless, since there's nothing after this life. Yes, individual life is - and so what? Is 'the point' the individual or the species? If not selfish, it is at least an ego-centric view. To the individual the timeline matters - the species has a totally different, much longer timeline; 'nature' as a whole an even longer one. To see Man, whether individual or species, as a creator's ultimate purpose is not without a certain arrogance. If there's no judgement of your sins in an afterlife (since there's no afterlife at all), you might as well just life a destructive, selfish life.Well, you actually may - will potentially not be a long one though... Jest aside, what is defined sin is prone to differing definitions in varying circumstances. Transferring judgement to an afterlife is an easy way of putting fear into an individual, stating that while it can potentially escape worldly consequences, it will be caught and tried 'later'. Believe it or not - and that is what criminals do, they don't believe or care for 'later consequences', and thus the system fails for those individuals. The other way works similarily - if you have a miserable life, you can find 'salvation' later (whatever exactly that may be) - believe it or not. In a billion years from now, our discussion may well be irrelevant - in a few billion years more, the planet will be engulfed in an exploding sun and it will be irrelevant to the universe - which may then still live. Sol 3 may not be a creator's purpose, who knows? 15 billion or 6.000 years - they may both be irrelevant to a 'timeless' being... A certain arrogance... Pride, perhaps? Pride in our Creator, I suppose. I guess you're right about the "Judgement" thing, the only way to truly find out about whether or not there is a Judgement is to die... I probably have a vastly different picture of "Earth a billion years from now" than you... In fact, I bet I have a vastly different picture of "Earth 1,000 years from now" than you do. But of course, time will tell... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 14, 2009 12:05:27 GMT
I probably have a vastly different picture of "Earth a billion years from now" than you... In fact, I bet I have a vastly different picture of "Earth 1,000 years from now" than you do. You do have a picture? Given the accelerating speed of development and knowledge I'd be hard put to even picture Earth 100 years from now! ;D A certain arrogance... Pride, perhaps? Pride in our Creator, I suppose. Pride? Maybe, but not pride in a creator - I meant the 'pride' of seeing Man as the crown or purpose of civilization or Earth as the focus of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 12:20:52 GMT
I probably have a vastly different picture of "Earth a billion years from now" than you... In fact, I bet I have a vastly different picture of "Earth 1,000 years from now" than you do. You do have a picture? Given the accelerating speed of development and knowledge I'd be hard put to even picture Earth 100 years from now! ;D A certain arrogance... Pride, perhaps? Pride in our Creator, I suppose. Pride? Maybe, but not pride in a creator - I meant the 'pride' of seeing Man as the crown or purpose of civilization or Earth as the focus of the universe. Well, since I believe in what the Bible says, I believe that after the 7 year reign of the Antichrist on Earth, followed by the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth (commonly known to Christians as "The Millennium"), God's going to burn up the surface of the Earth, and re-create it. It's going to be a beautiful New Earth, and in Revelation 2 details are mentioned regarding this "New Earth." 1, there is no more sea (although I'm guessing there'll be rivers, lakes, and streams). 2, the Heavenly City (which John described as being 2,200 kilometers long, wide, and high) will come down on Earth! So it will literally be "Heaven on Earth." (all this in the Book of Revelation) *** Well, I'm not sure if we're "alone" in the Universe... I mean, there could very well be other civilizations out there! I don't think Christianity restricts the Earth as the center of the Universe (well, some Christians may have said so, but not the Bible), nor do I think it restricts humanity as the only "developed" civilization in the Universe. Of course, as with what I mentioned above, only time will tell... BUT I WANT TO MEET E.T.!
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 14, 2009 14:42:35 GMT
I find it interesting that people who are Atheists, openly so, commit less crimes within a society, are less likely to get divorced, and are in general cooler (okay, I added the last part) than Christians, at least inside of Canada and the United States.
Now, you can make statistics say whatever you like, yes, this is true, but at the end of the day, Atheists don't support rape, or murder, or ect, because they aren't healthy for society. The fact that negative, aggressive behaviors that damage society, DAMAGE SOCIETY, does not mean the word of the "Lord!" are correct. What they mean is aggressive anti-social behaviors are not tolerated in a society.
Rape. Murder. Theft. They don't make things work so well. Lets take a look at Africa, where all these, and religion, are present. It doesn't really work so well. There aren't really enough "Atheist" Africans to even go as far as to say that we evil sinful Atheist people are responsible. Or in America, how most criminals are sitting there "Praising" Jesus, yet ass-[Censored]ing one another in the showers after being incarcerated for rape/murder/theft.
A lack of religion does not inherently bring about a lack of "Morality". A lack of religion brings about a lack of religion. If it were otherwise, places like Scandinavia and Japan would be shitholes. By contrast they are productive societies.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 15:40:19 GMT
Erm, has anyone actually looked at figures and done corralations for your assertions Terror, as I'd expect that the % of each group that commit crimes will be roughly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 14, 2009 15:55:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 16:28:31 GMT
cool
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 14, 2009 16:50:53 GMT
A perfect being would be humble, but still has a sense of pride in a certain form. The Pride that is evil is the one most people adhere to today, which puts self first. I never said pride was evil, just that it was a flaw. Being crippled isn't evil either but it's sure a weakness/flaw. Man was created perfect, but ALSO with freedom of choice. And apparently Eve chose to eat the fruit, because what Satan said must've sounded pretty good: "hey wait a minute, I CAN be a God!" Satan didn't lie outright, just told a half-truth. And that's why Eve swallowed it. So, basically, Satan fooled Eve, right? And Eve fell for it, didn't she? That's as easy as the "egg or chicken came first?" problem: obviously the Creator laid down the standard of what's right and wrong. Oh, and I figured that one out in about 0.2 seconds. I said "ponder on it". It took you 0.2 seconds to come up with an answer that means that good and evil is completely arbitrary terms with no actual meaning. Here's James Rachels explaining the consequences of claiming that "it's right because God said so": *************************************************** "We might mean that right conduct is right because God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16 God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God's command that makes truthfulness right. But this leads to trouble, for it represents God's commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, and not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted to reply "But God would never command us to lie." But why not? If he did endorse lying, God would not be comanding us to do wrong, because his command would make it right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore he could have had no more reason to command it than its opposite: and so, from a moral point of view, his command is arbitrary. Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but that he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to God's will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. What could it mean to say that God's commands are good? If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God" then "God's commands are good" would mean "God's commands are commanded by God", and empty truism. In 1686 Leibniz observed in his Discourse on Metaphysics: So, in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two options we seem to be stuck with consequences that even the most religious pepole would find unacceptable." *************************************************** So basically, morality was there before God and therefore we don't need God to know what's right or wrong. You'd might argue that it sure would be helpful, but he's still not necesary. For 2.: "God" is not only the Christian God. And when I wrote that, I wrote "God" as "The Creator," which is what I immediately followed "God" with in that particular sentence. Ah, my mistake. But then again, I didn't disprove "The Creator", I disproved the Christian God. So even if I'm right there might still be a creator to give us our morality. For 1.: Since God originally determined what was right and wrong, and moral standards have since been passed down from generation to generation, by now pretty much everybody has a sense of right and wrong. And we all have one since we're created beings: it's called a "conscience." For 3.: See point 1! Yeah... That has nothing to do with that I said on these two points. You said that it's either the Bible or nothing. I showed you one example of morality that's got nothing to do with the Bible. Another example is Kant. I've explained everything very clearly, it is painfully obvious you suffer from a severe "lack of comprehension" (or so as EK once put it recently). You comprehend as much of what I'm saying as I comprehend of what you're saying. Draw your own conclusions. And no, I honestly don't think the U.S constitution has done very well at all. Find one constitution from that period or earlier that's done better. I really don't think so, even the uneducated understand me fairly easily... You wrote it as if you were using two tons of irony. Which would have made perfect sense with a statement like that. Since you have plenty of pepole who don't believe in God today who aren't criminals. Übereil
|
|