Where Do Darwinist Atheists Get Their Moral Values?
Sound of Trumpet
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that one cannot
jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional historian
claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying Darwinian
principles, the atheist will be quick to point out that those
"Darwinian principles" are merely descriptive, i.e. they only tell us
what is the case. But, we are assured by the atheist, the same
principles do not imply anything prescriptive, i.e. they don't tell us
what ought to be the case. So Richard Dawkins:
I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.
But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society
which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking
after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical
care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical
fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
On this point, theists should wholeheartedly agree with atheists. You
cannot infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. And this is precisely one of the
troubling metaethical problems for atheistic morality.
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism is true. Assume,
furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Richard
Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these
assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of
anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And
given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and
above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It
follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no
description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer
that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further
uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if
it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that
action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal
deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference
rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists
have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion:
therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to
perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat
behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For
example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was
permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their
worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being
logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible
(for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument
denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could
the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single
rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are
forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out
with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more
intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from
'is'. I know which one I'd deny.
Phoenix Rising
thing happens evertime.. you cross post to alt.atheist... and the
other guy starts cross posting Sot Christianity garbage...
grow up
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mistake.html
Milan
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote in message
news:62ae9456-ccf6-4ac3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mistake.html
>
>
> Wednesday, April 23, 2008
>
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
>
> It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that one cannot
> jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional historian
> claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying Darwinian
> principles, the atheist will be quick to point out that those
> "Darwinian principles" are merely descriptive, i.e. they only tell us
> what is the case. But, we are assured by the atheist, the same
> principles do not imply anything prescriptive, i.e. they don't tell us
> what ought to be the case. So Richard Dawkins:
Kant said this over 2 centuries ago. Nothing new.
> I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.
> But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society
> which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking
> after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical
> care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical
> fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
>
> On this point, theists should wholeheartedly agree with atheists. You
> cannot infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. And this is precisely one of the
> troubling metaethical problems for atheistic morality.
No , it is not. Theists can't either.
>
> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism is true. Assume,
> furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Richard
> Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these
> assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of
> anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And
> given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and
> above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It
> follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no
> description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer
> that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further
> uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if
> it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that
> action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal
> deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference
> rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists
> have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion:
> therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to
> perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat
> behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For
> example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was
> permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their
> worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being
> logical at the same time.
Are u really this thick?
> Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible
> (for example, racist actions).
Hold your horses. The bible is a manual of racism. It encourages racism.
Remember Jesus calling gentiles "dogs"? And anyway, how do you conclude that
racist actions are not permissible? If you can draw that conclusion so can
an atheist.
>Since the conclusion of the argument
> denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could
> the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single
> rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are
> forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out
> with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more
> intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from
> 'is'. I know which one I'd deny.
Gosh, what a load of bollocks.
art...@yahoo.com
ideas. Some company in Jersey IIRC.
raven1
<soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote:
>Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible
>(for example, racist actions).
If the author needs religion to tell him such a thing, it's unlikely
to help much.
Mike Schilling
> Kant said this over 2 centuries ago.
And Pete Townshend in 1970.
I learned how to raise my voice in anger
Yeah, but look at my face, ain't this a smile?
I'm happy when life's good
And when it's bad I cry
I've got values but I don't know how or why
Hatter
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:36:15 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
>
> >Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible
> >(for example, racist actions).
>
> If the author needs religion to tell him such a thing, it's unlikely
> to help much.
especially since it tends to give liscence to racist
behavior....really "chosen people" ring a bell?
Hatter
brian fletcher
BOfL
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mist...
>
> Wednesday, April 23, 2008
>
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
At least we have ethics. Unlike you.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Gosh, what a load of bollocks.
Your identification is correct, and here is your five pounds.
This guy wandered over from talk.origins, which may be my fault for
frequenting both groups. He's persistently unteachable -- ask him to
back up the assertions about Pharoah's five-spoked chariot wheels
being found in the Red Sea that he made 10 years ago. He's known there
as The Nameless One so that his self-Googling doesn't draw him in more
often.
raven1
Methinks you're confusing SOT with McClueless. They are definitely not
the same person.
Conspiracy of Doves
wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mist...
>
> Wednesday, April 23, 2008
>
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
>
> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism is true. Assume,
> furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Richard
> Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these
> assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of
> anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And
> given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and
> above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It
> follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no
> description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer
> that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further
> uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if
> it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that
> action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal
> deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference
> rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists
> have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion:
> therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to
> perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat
> behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For
> example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was
> permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their
> worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being
> logical at the same time.
What fundies like you never seem to understand is that although we
have the highest respect for logic and reason, morality is not SOLELY
based on logic and reason. Yes, they are a big part of it, but there
is something else in there too. Empathy and compassion. Your bible
says that you shouldn't kill because people are created by god and you
shouldn't destroy something that god created. We don't kill because we
understand the pain and suffering that other people go through, and we
don't want to add more pain to the world if we can help it. Doing that
deliberately for any reason, not the least of which is self
gratification, would be horrific to us.
That is something that people like you have never been able to
comprehend. There is not one single mention in the bible about caring
about other people for THEIR sake.
Iain
wrote:
> Where Do Darwinist Atheists Get Their Moral Values?
There is no such thing as "darwinism".
It's a stupid exonym invented by Creationists in order to make science
look like a creed or cult.
If you call someone a "darwinist", you're partaking in a dishonest
charade.
~Iain
monkfish
Jesus Christ tells us to love even our enemies.
What does your ethical system say?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to prove
the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
Kenny McCormack
I'm proud to be a Newtonist, because I believe in gravity.
John Graeme
wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mist...
Even if you assume a God, how does that logically solve the problem of
deriving an "ought" from an "is'? Saying that "God" wills it is not a
logical argument. Saying you'll avoid hell and attain heaven is
basing it on self-interest--not a logical argument. Thesists have the
same problem with morality--they just don't recognize it.
Tokay Pino Gris
Can I be an Einsteinist, then, pretty please?
Tokay
--
"I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work."
Ben Franklin
tg
What part is that? If you start with some arbitrary premise, it is not
different from saying 'this is God's will'.
-tg
mimus
Like any honest theory, moral theory's arguments must be logically valid.
> What part is that? If you start with some arbitrary premise, it is not
> different from saying 'this is God's will'.
Try "Anything that explicitly or implicitly contradicts the existence of
morality is false and evil."
You know, like the concepts of prophecy, omniscience and omnipotence.
I've got a bookmark on that-- ah:
http://www.johnkennard.com/Tuw/Tuw15c.html
Which doesn't go as far as I would.
(I'd forgotten about the click-on-text-to-advance interface, there. Weird.)
--
It is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after. World conquest.
That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.
< American Christian Theocratic author George Grant
tg
A perfect example of a statement which fails multiple tests of
reason.
-tg
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mist...
>
>
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
>
> It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that one cannot
> jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional historian
> claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying Darwinian
> principles,
But no actual professional historians seem to say that. So, by
implying rather strongly that one did, you show your ethical
principles from the start by being a lying sack of shit.
--
Will in New Haven
Richard Anacker
Tokay Pino Gris schrieb:
>> I'm proud to be a Newtonist, because I believe in gravity.
>>
>
> Can I be an Einsteinist, then, pretty please?
Because you believe in violonism?
:-) richie
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two
Conspiracy of Doves
The premise is "What kind of society do we want to live in?"
There is nothing in logic or mathematics that, alone, can tell us
anything about the real world.
Kenny McCormack
Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.g...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
>> I'm proud to be a Newtonist, because I believe in gravity.
>>
>
>Can I be an Einsteinist, then, pretty please?
So designated.
>Tokay
>
>--
>
>"I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work."
>
>Ben Franklin
I thought that was Edison. Have I been wrong all these years?
monkfish
God does not have to be theistic.
We really should not limit God that way.
But God is the source of all 'ought'.
God revealed to us all 'ought' we need already.
Nothing needs to be derived.
All we have to do is apply it correctly.
monkfish
Arbitrary or not, Christian policies are
all written down in the Bible.
Where are your atheistic rules or policies?
tg
That's a question, not a premise. In order for logic and reason to
operate, the conclusion must not be stated in the premise. Go ahead.
-tg
Shrikeback
"Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.g...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:fvnltt$8t3$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article
>> <14202c19-e9a2-4881...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Iain <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 5, 12:36 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailhaven.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where Do Darwinist Atheists Get Their Moral Values?
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as "darwinism".
>>>
>>> It's a stupid exonym invented by Creationists in order to make science
>>> look like a creed or cult.
>>>
>>> If you call someone a "darwinist", you're partaking in a dishonest
>>> charade.
>>>
>>> ~Iain
>>
>> I'm proud to be a Newtonist, because I believe in gravity.
>>
>
> Can I be an Einsteinist, then, pretty please?
How about a Relativist?
Edward A. Falk
art...@yahoo.com <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think they get them from the same place that SF writers get their
>ideas. Some company in Jersey IIRC.
Saratoga, NY
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
William December Starr
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@mailhaven.com>
stole somebody else's words without even crediting the author:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mistake.html
[ ... ]
> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism is true.
> Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is'.
> (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of
> these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no
> description of anything in the natural world from which we can
> infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is
> nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural
> world is all that there is.
By defnition. If an entity that matches the specs of, say, the God
of Christianity, exists, it too will be part of the natural world.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> said:
>> Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not
>> permissible (for example, racist actions).
>
> If the author needs religion to tell him such a thing, it's
> unlikely to help much.
Yup, it's an age-old question: "Exactly how fucked up in the head do
you have to _be_ to need a god to tell you not to put live babies on
bayonets?"
William December Starr
monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> said:
> God does not have to be theistic.
> We really should not limit God that way.
>
> But God is the source of all 'ought'.
Says who? God?
Gene
$49r$1...@panix1.panix.com:
> If an entity that matches the specs of, say, the God
> of Christianity, exists, it too will be part of the natural
world.
100% wrong. By definition, it won't be.
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
Sorry, I meant matching the objective specs -- all-powerful,
all-present and all-knowing -- as well as having done and said
all that's stated in the biblical "historical record." (Yes, I
know that the Christians also say that their God is all-correct,
even on subjective issues like morality, but since that's
nonsensical I chose to ignore it.)
So really, if it exists it's just another piece of the natural
world.
Immortalist
wrote:
> Milan wrote:
> > Kant said this over 2 centuries ago.
>
> And Pete Townshend in 1970.
>
> I learned how to raise my voice in anger
> Yeah, but look at my face, ain't this a smile?
> I'm happy when life's good
> And when it's bad I cry
> I've got values but I don't know how or why
How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions?
Do humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious
tool kit for constructing moral systems.
For example, although we might not be able to articulate immediately
the moral principle underlying the ban on incest, our moral faculty
instinctually declares that incest is disgusting and thus
impermissible.
Humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously
propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of
gender, education, and religion. Experience tunes up our moral
actions, guiding what we do as opposed to how we deliver our moral
verdicts.
For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise
from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The
common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously
reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is
right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that
our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education,
developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across
cultures.
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703/
The proposal, [that people are born with a moral grammar wired into
their neural circuits by evolution] if true, would have far-reaching
consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching
children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best,
giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are
not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of
instinctive moral behavior.
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
same moral judgments [&] the system that unconsciously generates moral
judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
The moral grammar operates in much the same way as the universal
grammar proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural
machinery for language. The universal grammar is a system of rules for
generating syntax and vocabulary but does not specify any particular
language. That is supplied by the culture in which a child grows up.
The moral grammar too is a system for generating moral behavior and
not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly
that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society
-- do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don't
kill; avoid adultery and incest; don't cheat, steal or lie.
But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different
weights to the elements of the grammar's calculations. Thus one
society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty
in certain circumstances.
The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
of their survival value.
Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
individual and punish offenders. Lions cooperate on the hunt, but
there is no punishment for laggards.
The moral grammar now universal among people presumably evolved to its
final shape during the hunter-gatherer phase of the human past, before
the dispersal from the ancestral homeland in northeast Africa some
50,000 years ago. This may be why events before our eyes carry far
greater moral weight than happenings far away since in those days one
never had to care about people remote from one's environment.
The moral grammar may have evolved through the evolutionary mechanism
known as group selection. A group bound by altruism toward its members
and rigorous discouragement of cheaters would be more likely to
prevail over a less cohesive society, so genes for moral grammar would
become more common.
http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2006/10/the_moral_mind_ny_times_commen.php
turtoni
i need air.
i need water.
i need food.
i need you.
James A. Donald
Evolution.
We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that seem
unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we are
unlikely to cut their throats.
"Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
"evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Gene
$s71$1...@panix1.panix.com:
> So really, if it exists it's just another piece of the
natural
> world.
That's a more interesting question. If it created the natural
world, that seems to rule out being a part of it. If it has
powers for which no explanation in terms of natural law seems
possible-sufficiently advanced technology or not-then many
would call that supernature. If it is self-existent in some
sense, that seems to put it outside of nature also.
A bit murky, as some theologies seem to make the God in
question a part of the natural world, but mostly there seems to
be something to rule that out, even leaving aside the "by
definition".
ZerkonX
> as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.
"passionate"? Science and passion are not a good mix.
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:fvotai
> $s71$1...@panix1.panix.com:
>
>> So really, if it exists it's just another piece of the natural
>> world.
>
> That's a more interesting question. If it created the natural
> world, that seems to rule out being a part of it.
It all comes down to "what does 'natural world' mean?" I see it as
equivalent to "reality, the sum of all existence." If God exists,
he does so within reality, not somewhere else. And if he expanded
reality, creating more of it (or rearranging what there already was
of it), well that's fine but it's not like he _invented_ the stuff
-- he couldn't exist without it himself.
I pre-emptively wince at resorting to Star Trek for Deep Wisdom, but
the Vulcans _did_ have it right when they said "Nothing unreal exists."
> If it has powers for which no explanation in terms of natural law
> seems possible-sufficiently advanced technology or not-then many
> would call that supernature.
They would, but that's their problem. If it exists then by
definition it isn't something from outside of existence. If
'natural law' can't explain it, that just means that natural law
theory is incomplete.
> If it is self-existent in some sense, that seems to put it outside
> of nature also.
Expecting "seems" to equal "demonstrates" is a mistake, though. Our
common sense may tell us that every effect has to have a pre-cause,
but that common sense evolved solely to help us get around in an
environment that's an infinitesimally tiny part of All That Is.
However well it works for us in that environment, we shouldn't
expect it to be universally applicable.
monkfish
What are you going to do
if your commanding officer tells you to do it
while he has his pistol pointed at your head?
Gene
$a9r$1...@panix1.panix.com:
> It all comes down to "what does 'natural world' mean?" I see
it as
> equivalent to "reality, the sum of all existence." If God
exists,
> he does so within reality, not somewhere else. And if he
expanded
> reality, creating more of it (or rearranging what there
already was
> of it), well that's fine but it's not like he _invented_ the
stuff
> -- he couldn't exist without it himself.
Or we could say it's not God existing within reality, but
reality existing within God.
Start with Aristotle's God-thought thinking itself. The thought
thinking itself is a closed loop (Aristotle isn't clear on
this, but this is the fun way.) It exists to think itself
because it is itself its own thought. This thought thinking
itself is not in time, and not conditioned by anything other
than what it thinks itself to be. Now suppose the thought
thinks of others. It might even dream up perceptions for the
others to have, so that they seem to be in space and time.
There's your "reality". I think allowing that something like
this is true supernature is better than saying the category is
impossible.
monkfish
We seem to have eveolved enough to be able to
created an ethical system from the scratch.
Some philosophers actually tried.
What evolutionary advantage would such capacity have?
monkfish
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>> How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions?
>
> Evolution.
>
> We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
> with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that seem
> unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we are
> unlikely to cut their throats.
>
> "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
> friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
> "evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
Is that why there are so much evil in the world?
Bill Patterson
brained topics so looked in on this one today because it's a good
example of a crack-brained question that was really settled in the
1790's (morality has nothing whatsoever to do with God; choosing to
use a moral code "because God told me so" is no better, worse, or
different, than choosing other moral codes for other reasons, to use
an extreme and sloganistic reduction of the conclusion: you have to
choose some way to act in some fashion, and you can get to the same
conclusions by many logical paths) with a goodly number of posts and
found a fair number of people I know having basically harmless fun
with a rather naive loon. Ok, I get it.
The fact that people are still talking about things like this, though,
connected it in my mind to an observation that rose in another context
recently: there seem to be a lot of intellectual fronts that simply
stopped diffusing through the popular (American) education in about
1700; the Enlightenment seems very imperfectly understood; we get
virtually nothing in American pop culture about the meaning and
context of the American and French revolutions starting in the 1770's
and going through about 1848, and without those contexts, it's
impossible to understand what the political issues were at the end of
the nineteenth century and how they got to where they are now in the
21st.
In this context, it's discouraging but not all that incomprehensible
that the extremely naive think there is some "question" to be
discussed with regard to the basic principles of Darwinian evolution
or the existence of the Judeo-Christian god -- or the crack-brained
notion that morality has anything to do with the existence of the
Judeo-Christian god. I had to give up looking regularly in on ILP
because the same naive and irrelevant kind of thing dominates the
"discussion" there, too. We actually have the equivalent of this in
science fiction, among those who think SF stories based on the physics
theory of the anthropic principle is actually "fantasy." (On the
other hand I'm not entirely sure how to position Greg Egan's highly
platonic stories about proving mathematical theorems and changing the
fundamental constants of physics -- he certainly uses a stfnal
presentation, but ...)
monkfish
Never underestimate reality.
If you are cock sure about something
that is neither logical nor mathematical,
you probably misunderstood it.
Gene
2539-4e7d-bd0...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> morality has nothing whatsoever to do with God; choosing to
> use a moral code "because God told me so" is no better,
worse, or
> different, than choosing other moral codes for other reasons
Well, of course. You chose a moral code because you can
mathematically prove it is correct, not because of God.
James A. Donald
> >> How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions?
James A. Donald wrote:
> > Evolution.
> >
> > We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
> > with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that seem
> > unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we are
> > unlikely to cut their throats.
> >
> > "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
> > friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
> > "evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
monkfish
> Is that why there are so much evil in the world?
The world is what it is. The question that was asked is why humans
feel about it as they do.
Dan Clore
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mistake.html
> Wednesday, April 23, 2008
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
>
> It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that one cannot
> jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional historian
> claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying Darwinian
> principles,
Then this professional historian should lose his job. Hitler was a
Creationist and endorsed Creationism in _Mein Kampf_.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Gene
news:68buscF...@mid.individual.net:
>> It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that
one cannot
>> jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional
historian
>> claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying
Darwinian
>> principles,
>
> Then this professional historian should lose his job. Hitler
was a
> Creationist and endorsed Creationism in _Mein Kampf_.
You speak as if Hitler articulated some clearly worked out
theory. He didn't. He did babble on about both God and the
struggle between the strong and the weak in nature, with
victory going to the strong. God seems be on the side of the
overdog. Calling that either Creationism or Darwinism is
baloney, I think.
monkfish
> Immortalist
>> >> How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions?
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > Evolution.
>> >
>> > We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
>> > with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that seem
>> > unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we are
>> > unlikely to cut their throats.
>> >
>> > "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
>> > friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
>> > "evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
>
> monkfish
>> Is that why there are so much evil in the world?
>
> The world is what it is. The question that was asked is why humans
> feel about it as they do.
However strange it might sound to you,
God is prior to good and evil.
Why does evolution need so much evil?
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>> That's a more interesting question. If it created the natural
>> world, that seems to rule out being a part of it.
>
>It all comes down to "what does 'natural world' mean?" I see it as
>equivalent to "reality, the sum of all existence." If God exists,
>he does so within reality, not somewhere else. And if he expanded
>reality, creating more of it (or rearranging what there already was
>of it), well that's fine but it's not like he _invented_ the stuff
>-- he couldn't exist without it himself.
For a long time, religions did not make a real distinction between the
natural and supernatural. They figured everything was part of our
world together. That has changed.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Methinks you're confusing SOT with McClueless. They are definitely not
> the same person.
Sorry. I thought I'd seen a link with McClueless' name in it as a sig
to one of the previous posts from this being.
In the dark all loons are gray, I guess.
Jon Schild
Sound of Fart wrote:
[lots of crap snipped]
From the subject, it is obvious that once again you don't have a clue
what you are talking about. I have seen stupid people before who think
that it is impossible for an atheist to have any ethical or moral values
because he is not afraid of hell fire.
Well, idiot, let me point this out. If you are only good because you are
afraid of hell, you aren't good. You are only browbeaten. If you are
only good because of hope of heaven, you aren't good. You are only greedy.
No go play in the traffic in Rome or Paris, so you can leave us alone.
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
Gene
news:0mn124h0mas14jtq3...@4ax.com:
> For a long time, religions did not make a real distinction
between the
> natural and supernatural. They figured everything was part
of our
> world together. That has changed.
By way of evidence for that fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia:
James A. Donald
> > > > Evolution.
> > > >
> > > > We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
> > > > with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that seem
> > > > unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we are
> > > > unlikely to cut their throats.
> > > >
> > > > "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
> > > > friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
> > > > "evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
monkfish
> > > Is that why there are so much evil in the world?
James A. Donald:
> > The world is what it is. The question that was asked is why humans
> > feel about it as they do.
monkfish.
> However strange it might sound to you,
> God is prior to good and evil.
>
> Why does evolution need so much evil?
Evolution does not care about evil, though evolution shapes some
creatures to care. God is supposed to care, hence the presence of
evil is compelling evidence against the existence of God.
Mike Schilling
The medieval proofs of God's existence are further evidence. Many of
them used facets of the everyday, natural world to demonstrate that a
Supreme Being must exist. Much like today's IDers, come to think of
it.
Dennis L. McKiernan
magic [like walking on water], etc.) and magical thinking (you know,
things like "if I complete this rite, something good/bad will happen";
for example, prayer and transubstantiation fall into this category of
magical thinking).
Ethics and morality deals with social interactions (you know,
civilization, law, etc.).
Ethics and morality (social constructs) can exist without miracles and
magic and magical thinking; religion, it seems, cannot.
Way back when ... religion co-opted ethics and morality and coupled it
to their magical-thinking teachings (you know, if you do bad things
you'll go to hell; if you do good things you'll go to paradise; not
believing in my god will send you to hell; but believing in my god will
get you to heaven. Doing some bad things, like, say, blowing yourself
up at a wedding and killing lots of people [unbelievers: those who do
not follow my interpretation of the holy scriptures and rites], will get
you to paradise, too).
But, I repeat, ethics and morality (social constructs, mainly dealing
with how people can get along with one another) can exist without
miracles and magic and magical thinking.
---Dennis
monkfish
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > > > Evolution.
>> > > >
>> > > > We are a pack animal. Our mode of survival requires collaboration
>> > > > with others. We therefore prefer to collaborate with those that
>> > > > seem unlikely to cut our throats, and need to persuade others we
>> > > > are unlikely to cut their throats.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Evil" is those characteristics that indicate a willingness to harm
>> > > > friends, associates and random innocents in the general vicinity,
>> > > > "evil acts" are acts indicative of such propensity.
>
> monkfish
>> > > Is that why there are so much evil in the world?
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > The world is what it is. The question that was asked is why humans
>> > feel about it as they do.
>
> monkfish.
>> However strange it might sound to you,
>> God is prior to good and evil.
>>
>> Why does evolution need so much evil?
>
> Evolution does not care about evil, though evolution shapes some
> creatures to care. God is supposed to care, hence the presence of
> evil is compelling evidence against the existence of God.
>
Flat reasoning.
God's perspective is not like ours.
God is prior to good and evil.
Is it evil for a lion to eat a gazelle?
It's us who turn things into evil.
God cared enough to show us the way out.
It's up to us to follow it.
Does evolution show you the way out?
Wayne Throop
: But, I repeat, ethics and morality (social constructs, mainly dealing
: miracles and magic and magical thinking.
Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule for which
side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop or go, without
divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up with "thou shalt not
go around killing people" is unclear.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Michael Alan Chary
Yet it is unquestionably the case, partially because nobody has that rule.
What they insterad have is "These are the appropriate circumstances under
which..."
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
David DeLaney
>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dl...@worldnet.att.net>
>>: But, I repeat, ethics and morality (social constructs, mainly dealing
>>: with how people can get along with one another) can exist without
>>: miracles and magic and magical thinking.
>>
>>Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule for which
>>side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop or go, without
>>divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up with "thou shalt not
>>go around killing people" is unclear.
>
>Yet it is unquestionably the case, partially because nobody has that rule.
Trent does, though his is shorter.
Dave "people on a.m and a.p may not be familiar with Trent; if not, they have
some marvellous books waiting to be read" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Michael Alan Chary
David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>>: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dl...@worldnet.att.net>
>>>: But, I repeat, ethics and morality (social constructs, mainly dealing
>>>: with how people can get along with one another) can exist without
>>>: miracles and magic and magical thinking.
>>>
>>>Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule for which
>>>side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop or go, without
>>>divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up with "thou shalt not
>>>go around killing people" is unclear.
>>
>>Yet it is unquestionably the case, partially because nobody has that rule.
>
>Trent does, though his is shorter.
Let me rephrase: nobody who has formed a society with laws addressing
homicide has that rule. For example, we do not in the US execute the
mentally retarded, in principle.
Nobody in particular
History, as well as the Old Testament, has shown just how hard it is for
god-botherers to come up with such a rule. In fact, Big Daddy in the Sky
will smite people for committing the dire sin of *incomplete* genocide.
They may as well show their true colors by worshipping Cthulhu openly.
Wayne Throop
:::: for which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop
:::: or go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up
:::: with "thou shalt not go around killing people" is unclear.
::: Yet it is unquestionably the case, partially because nobody has that
::: rule.
:: Trent does, though his is shorter.
: mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary)
: Let me rephrase: nobody who has formed a society with laws addressing
: homicide has that rule. For example, we do not in the US execute the
: mentally retarded, in principle.
I'm confused. How is "we don't execute the mentally redarded" a
counterexample to having the rule "thou shalt not go around killing
people"? Or was "that rule" some other rule? Or were you talking
about exceptions such as military or capital punishment (which would be
akin to exceptions for evacuation or other emergency use)? And *what*
is unquestionably the case; that it's hard to come up with a rule,
or that the rule has often been come up with?
In short... it's a bit difficult to follow what you're actually
disagreeing with... or even if you *are* disagreeing; maybe you were
agreeing, I can't tell.
Wayne Throop
:: which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop or
:: go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up with
:: "thou shalt not go around killing people" is unclear.
: "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID>
: History, as well as the Old Testament, has shown just how hard it is
: for god-botherers to come up with such a rule.
The notion that the rules are mandated by an absoltue authority is in fact
counterproductive to coming up with them. Because, historically, it's
often the case that one set of people have absolutely-mandated different
and conflicting rules, compared to another. But since they are absolutely
mandated, nobody can compromise. Consider how sad it would be if the
right-siders and left-siders refused to reach a consensus.
Not that it's always easy to reach a consensus even if not pinned down
by conflicting absolute authorities. But still, easy-ER.
Sure, you can suppose that a lack of absolute authority to tie-break
in any conflict is a bug. But in actual practice, given that there
are multiple competing absolute authorities, it's a feature.
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
> Or we could say it's not God existing within reality, but reality
> existing within God.
>
> Start with Aristotle's God-thought thinking itself. The thought
> thinking itself is a closed loop (Aristotle isn't clear on this,
> but this is the fun way.) It exists to think itself because it is
> itself its own thought. This thought thinking itself is not in
> time, and not conditioned by anything other than what it thinks
> itself to be. Now suppose the thought thinks of others.
(Side note: there's an implied change of state there, a "the thought
was thinking X and now is thinking X+Y" sequence which in turn
implies that something timelike is happening. Not the same time
axis as we experience, perhaps, but still _a_ time axis.)
> It might even dream up perceptions for the others to have, so that
> they seem to be in space and time. There's your "reality". I
> think allowing that something like this is true supernature is
> better than saying the category is impossible.
So in this model we're simulations, virtual sub-machines, that are
running on God? Hmm. [Note: insert obligatory stupid "Matrix"
reference here.] Okay, you could say then that there are (at least)
two distinct levels of reality, and that one is indeed "super-"
relative to the other, so yes, "nature" and "supernature" (and their
corresponding adjectival forms) would apply.
Distinct, though, from this being "not God existing within reality,
but reality existing within God," this would be "The subset of
reality which we can perceive exists within God" (while God and
_complete_ reality would be congruent)
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
"Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> said:
> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
> <news:12101...@sheol.org>...
>
>> Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule
>> for which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means
>> stop or go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to
>> come up with "thou shalt not go around killing people" is
>> unclear.
>
> History, as well as the Old Testament, has shown just how hard it
> is for god-botherers to come up with such a rule. In fact, Big
> Daddy in the Sky will smite people for committing the dire sin of
> *incomplete* genocide.
Tehcnically, shouldn't that be in the past tense? As well as
qualified with "when he explicitly told them to kill everybody,"
suggesting that the real sin was disobedience? (Or am I
misremembering the story?)
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule
> for which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means
> stop or go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to
> come up with "thou shalt not go around killing people" is unclear.
It's harder to come up with a "...with the following special-case
exceptions" list that enough people can agree on?
Wayne Throop
:: which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means stop or
:: go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to come up with
:: "thou shalt not go around killing people" is unclear.
: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
: It's harder to come up with a "...with the following special-case
: exceptions" list that enough people can agree on?
What, everybody agrees on exception lists for traffic rules?
I think the only distinguishing point is the seriousness of the
consequences of reaching an inappropriate ruleset. Which might
be a factor, but doesn't seem to be to be a dominant problem.
Athena
(in message <9OWdnfozS64uW7zV...@ptd.net>):
> Flat reasoning.
Monkfish -
You are using a mobius strip reasoning
Gene
$lhm$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> In article <Xns9A964F43096E8genewardsmithsbcglob@
207.115.33.102>,
> Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
>
>> Or we could say it's not God existing within reality, but
reality
>> existing within God.
>>
>> Start with Aristotle's God-thought thinking itself. The
thought
>> thinking itself is a closed loop (Aristotle isn't clear on
this,
>> but this is the fun way.) It exists to think itself because
it is
>> itself its own thought. This thought thinking itself is not
in
>> time, and not conditioned by anything other than what it
thinks
>> itself to be. Now suppose the thought thinks of others.
>
> (Side note: there's an implied change of state there, a "the
thought
> was thinking X and now is thinking X+Y" sequence which in
turn
> implies that something timelike is happening. Not the same
time
> axis as we experience, perhaps, but still _a_ time axis.)
Well, no. I wasn't assuming any such thing when I said "now
suppose"; I was placing the reader in time, moving from one
supposition to another.
> Distinct, though, from this being "not God existing within
reality,
> but reality existing within God," this would be "The subset
of
> reality which we can perceive exists within God" (while God
and
> _complete_ reality would be congruent)
In this picture, reality is what God is thinking, it seems to
me. He is thinking us, and we may be thinking something else.
veritas
Religion has seen fit to "steal" the rights to "morals". Well, that
is just what they claim. They have no rights to morals. They have
never had a logical claim on morals. Logic, common sense, and the
necessity of being social groups is what makes morals, not believing
in some deity. It is something the brain demands. Even atheists are
religious. The believe in something by faith, in other words, with no
proof what-so-ever. For some reason the brain demands an end to
answers, even if we make them up. We are born, live, we die, then
what? There will always be religion because our brains work like they
work. You brain wants an end of the story, no matter what it costs
you. But I include Atheists and Religions all in one catagory.
E.O.S. people. End of the story people. They are all the same, if
you sit down and decide your own morals, that's fine. Most of the
time, if you follow the law, even if a little loosely, be polite, and
help people when you can, what is any sin in that? You didn't support
the con-people. I don't think that is a sin, except to them.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Religion has seen fit to "steal" the rights to "morals". Well, that
>is just what they claim. They have no rights to morals. They have
>never had a logical claim on morals.
The topic of this thread seemed to indicate that the requirement for
morals is an authority powerful enough to convince people to behave
good. This could be a religion or a state or peer pressure.
It also implies that morals aren't internal - that without such an
authority we would all be immoral. To me, doing what the guy with
the club says isn't morality, it is self preservation. Morality is
what you do even when the big guy isn't looking.
Athena
(in message <DqGdnVUTNPfct77V...@ptd.net>):
> Atheists have blind faith in their ability
> to already know of all actual and possible ways
> to prove anything actual or possible.
> They cannot even dream of the possibility that
> there could be physical forces not yet discovered
> if not in this world than in other possible worlds.
> They cannot even dream of the possibility that
> there could be many more dimensions not yet discovered
> if not in this world than in other possible worlds.
> What a pity!
You said the exact say thing a few minutes ago.
Short term memory loss or very little to say so have to repeat
You seem to like to post to see your words - obviously you like these
unmoderated groups as without these, you would have no place where you can
read your own words.
monkfish
It's o.k.
I'll be posting them on and off
until some people smart enough to know better
show me what's wrong with them.
Athena
(in message <rPidnSJPS8RLp77V...@ptd.net>):
> I'll be posting them on and off
> until some people smart enough to know better
> show me what's wrong with them.
Do you really think you can convince others that you can make a silk purse
from a sowąs ear?
veritas
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 21:03:42 -0700 (PDT), veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
I agree with you in a way. I personally decided how I would live my
life, and have done so with little trouble and it has nothing to do
with religion. But religion does claim that without them there would
be no morality. They always have, that is the draw. I didn't imply
that morals were not internal, only that the churches have claimed
them as if they own them. What I agree with you about is that is
exactly what morality is, what do you do when you know you won't be
caught? That is a morality test.
veritas
Wayne, I'm surprised at you. God gives Moses the ten commandants
(eight in Bill Clinton's version) and then takes him up on a
mountaintop and tells him to have his people kill all the Cannanites,
take their goods, and property and it will all be theirs forever. And
you wonder why people are confused? God may have told Bush to invade
Iraq, and crush Iran before he leaves office. He may have even told
you to post this. He didn't tell me to though, I thought it up myself.
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>>> Consider how sad it would be if nobody could come up with a rule
>>> for which side of the street to drive on, or whether red means
>>> stop or go, without divine intervention. Why it's any harder to
>>> come up with "thou shalt not go around killing people" is
>>> unclear.
>>
>> It's harder to come up with a "...with the following special-case
>> exceptions" list that enough people can agree on?
>
> What, everybody agrees on exception lists for traffic rules?
Perhaps not, but they don't care anywhere near as much if they don't
get their way on the issue. ("They" meaning all the people, not
"the losing faction on the rules-making committee.")
veritas
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:28:36 -0500, monkfish wrote
Athena, (Goddess of War) though it is true I like to see my words as
well, there is no difference between the religions of Atheistism, or
any other. None can be believed except by faith alone, the meaning of
faith is "believing with no facts". We are specks in the Universe and
our ignorance is apparent, we are just beginning a journey to find out
things. If we have that long. I believe I repeated some of what I
wrote above, but our brains when it has a problem, or story, it
demands an end, even if we have to make it up. That is what those
people do, their brains demand an answer. We don't have an answer to
this particular story, so you should ease up, as he wants an answer
where there is none for now.
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> Athena wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:28:36 -0500, monkfish wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
As all religions have a undebatable policy. All religion, and atheism
is a religion, is based on faith. No facts for any of the faiths are
available.
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 12:39:21 -0500, monkfish wrote
>
> > I'll be posting them on and off
> > until some people smart enough to know better
> > show me what's wrong with them.
>
> Do you really think you can convince others that you can make a silk purse
It is possible, though much more expensive than just having a silkworm
produce the silk for the purse.
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> In article <1210210...@sheol.org>,
Does make you wonder why they don't give the death sentence to
retarded people.
Just tell them they are going to sleep and they will wake up in a new
place. Seems simple enough. Better than sitting in a small cell for
the rest of your life and not knowing why. Seems the better option.
--
Ken Hogan
monkfish
You seem to be trying to do it
on your own with your limited intelligence.
Open your mind and see that
Reality is prior to good and evil,
prior to time and space,
and even prior to existence.
You have to "see" it to believe it.
If you make up something,
it would be as limited as you.
Let it go and trust God,
whatever He might be.
We are here to find God after all.
Athena
(in message
<0cfef0b4-04d2-4e86...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):
> None can be believed except by faith
> We don't have an answer to
> this particular story, so you should ease up, as he wants an answer
> where there is none for now.
Yes
He does not understand the nature of faith if he is looking for an answer
that does not exist.
Athena
(in message
<fb7c27f1-af1f-4d65...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> As all religions have a undebatable policy.
Yes - they are based on faith
Athena
(in message
<0cfef0b4-04d2-4e86...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):
> Athena, (Goddess of War)
Athena is the Greek Goddess of Wisdom
Gene
81ba-42e...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> Does make you wonder why they don't give the death sentence
to
> retarded people.
> Just tell them they are going to sleep and they will wake up
in a new
> place. Seems simple enough. Better than sitting in a small
cell for
> the rest of your life and not knowing why. Seems the better
option.
"Me an' you."
"You . . . . an' me. Ever'body gonna be nice to you. Ain't
gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal
from 'em."
Lennie said, "I thought you was mad at me, George."
"No," said George. "No, Lennie. I ain't mad. I never been mad,
an' I ain't now. That's a thing I want ya to know."
The voices came close now. George raised the gun and listened
to the voices.
Lennie begged, "Le's do it now. Le's get that place now."
"Sure, right now. I gotta. We gotta."
And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the
muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head. The hand shook
violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled
the trigger. The crash of the shot rolled up the hills and
rolled down again. Lennie jarred, and then settled slowly
forward to the sand, and he lay without quivering.
George shivered and looked at the gun, and then he threw it
from him, back up on the bank, near the pile of old ashes.
monkfish
Faith without doubt is suspect.
Even though religion relies on faith,
faith is not fixed, unchanging, or absolute.
Faith is rather like self-awareness.
Do you have any faith?
Day Brown
Also, descendant from the Great Earth Mother, Gaia, Athena is
parthenogenic. (conceived without male fertilization)
Hence the "Parthenon".
Splicer
> George shivered and looked at the gun, and then he threw it
> from him, back up on the bank, near the pile of old ashes.
>
My question: Is George "helping" his friend or does George become one of
the oppressors - making life and death decisions that are not his to make?
pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-atheists-make-huge-mist...
>
> Wednesday, April 23, 2008
>
> New atheists make a huge ethical mistake
>
> It seems quite popular now for new atheists to insist that one cannot
> jump from 'is' to 'ought'. For example, if a professional historian
> claims that what Hitler did was influenced by underlying Darwinian
> principles, the atheist will be quick to point out that those
> "Darwinian principles" are merely descriptive, i.e. they only tell us
> what is the case. But, we are assured by the atheist, the same
> principles do not imply anything prescriptive, i.e. they don't tell us
> what ought to be the case. So Richard Dawkins:
>
> I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.
> But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society
> which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking
> after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical
> care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical
> fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
>
> On this point, theists should wholeheartedly agree with atheists. You
> cannot infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. And this is precisely one of the
> troubling metaethical problems for atheistic morality.
>
> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism is true. Assume,
> furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Richard
> Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these
> assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of
> anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And
> given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and
> above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It
> follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no
> description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer
> that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further
> uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if
> it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that
> action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal
> deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference
> rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists
> have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion:
> therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to
> perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat
> behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For
> example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was
> permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their
> worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being
> logical at the same time.
>
> Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible
> (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument
> denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could
> the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single
> rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are
> forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out
> with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more
> intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from
> 'is'. I know which one I'd deny.
I really cannot follow the authors logic,
but moral values are a very human property.
It so closely linked with consciousness, that we call the complex
inside the brain that deals with moral values our "conscience".
Moral values are memes, which just as genes develop thru evolution.
There is nothing in the laws of nature that decides what we "ought" to
do.
But nevertheless we have a general idea.
Surely the idea that racism is wrong, does not come from the wizard
that apperantly punishes the offspring of Cham and favors the
offspring of Sem.
Surely the idea that genocide is wrong, does not come from the wizard
that seeks to kill all of the Midianites and all of the Amelikites.
Women and children included.
For it's true origin: See: http://www.xs4all.nl/~velzen5/Morality.html
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
PS Normally I ignore postings by "Sound of Trumpet" as that posters
will not debate but only post new threads using borrowed material.
But as I think I know the answer of the question that forms the
subject line.
I guess I should reply this time.
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
My motto is : "Truth does not give a damn what we conceive. We
survive or perish according to our ability to discern the truth and
act upon it." - Ken Hogan www.veritasnovel.com
Truth does not care what we think, conceive, imagine, or do. The
truth just IS. Our problem is to discern what that truth may be. All
of us have a limited intelligence, it is the total sum of all of our
intelligence as a species that directs us in certain directions. Give
yourself up to trying to discern the truth and God may find you.
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:45:30 -0500, veritas wrote
> (in message
>
> > Athena, (Goddess of War)
>
> Athena is the Greek Goddess of Wisdom
Why was she born sprung from Zeus' head in full armour if she is the
Goddess of Wisdom? Of course with full armour and sword, if she wants
to be thought of as Goddess of Wisdom, it would be foolish to argue
with her. If you say Wisdom, Wisdom it is.
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> Athena wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:45:30 -0500, veritas wrote
> > (in message
>
> >> Athena, (Goddess of War)
>
> > Athena is the Greek Goddess of Wisdom
>
> Not that She could not kick ass if need be to protect her own.
> Also, descendant from the Great Earth Mother, Gaia, Athena is
> parthenogenic. (conceived without male fertilization)
>
> Hence the "Parthenon".
Yeah, that's what I said, if she wants Goddess of Wisdom, so be it.
Full armour and weapons, she gets to be Wisdom if she choses!
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here seems to be the problem. As DNA studies are done, such as the
Cambridge study published in April of last year, it is apparent we are
all decended from a very small group of modern humans about 60,000
years ago. Fully modern and we don't know why. Evolution works, as
we have all changed with climate and survival changes in outward
appearance, but any two people in the world will match 99% of the same
DNA. I believe the estimate was about 10,000 adult modern humans are
our only ancestors. Darwin was right, but we have missed something
with modern humans. We skipped the normal Darwinian trip and went
straight to us. We are just now realizing what our brains are capable
of, and why they work how they work. They can do much more than we
realized if trained right.
Morals, religion, dreams, intelligence, or lack of, is just now
getting some answers. We somehow skipped into a sentient being, the
only one ever known, and the only species that showed up and dominated
a world in 60,000 years. We have so far to go before we have real
answers to the questions you were refering to, I bet it will be a
surprise. I am not religious, but it will be an answer we never
expected.
--
Ken Hogan
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive. We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon
Athena
>>
>>> Athena is the Greek Goddess of Wisdom
>>
>> Not that She could not kick ass if need be to protect her own.
>> Also, descendant from the Great Earth Mother, Gaia, Athena is
>> parthenogenic. (conceived without male fertilization)
Another example of Immaculate conception which pre-dates Jesus?
veritas
I believe you are correct! However, coming out of Zeus' head fully
grown is a little bit of a reach. Not if you are a god, I guess.
--
Ken Hogan
monkfish
Any more than the myth that we are all created equal?