Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That website's incredibly badly designed!
Interesting though... 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill said:
From the materialist position there is no ought, neither to be practical or impractical. Killing one's self with crack seems mighty impractical to most of us, but is a price worth the pleasure for others. As a theist, I can say why they ought not to do so. All the materialist can say is why he chooses not to do so - he can offer no moral reason to desist to the crack-head.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You keep missing the point. There may be practical reasons for any morality, but that does not say one ought to do it. One can freely choose to gamble one's freedom, for example, for the possible benefits of robbing the bank. But if it WRONG, then even guaranteed success will not make it a good moral choice. Is it wrong for me to rob the bank, or just dangerous?
Em I would imagine that the majority of people would think that if something is practical, it ought to be done. What is the alternative but to be impractical? Why ought you do that?
So you are saying that society was immoral by having that morality. You vs Society. Your morality it seems is above society's - yet you claim morality exists only from society.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The circumstances are Alan Turning and his gay partner, both consenting. You say that was morally OK, but society said it was not. How can you then claim morality is what society determines?
Morality is what society determines, but how societies determine that morality determines the actual quality fo that morality.
OK, so society is not the originator of morality, only of a mass morality. But there is a criminal who has a morality different from yours and a society that has a morality different from your society's. Who is being immoral? The consistent materialist cannot say either.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You are oscillitating between morality being what the individual determines and what society determines. If you make up your mind we can proceed to compare this to the absolute morality others hold to.
Morality is both. It is fluid. Individuals decide their morality and when they join together in a society they decide a joint morality, laws, to live by. Not everyone may agree word for word with the societal morality, but to live in the society they must. However they still have the power to try to influence the societies morals and possibly change the laws. This happens all the time.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Being amoral does not require one to be ignorant of the consequences of one's actions. Indeed, some amoralists gain pleasure from those consequences.
All intelligences have an idea of things they would not want done to them.
True.All intelligences have an idea of the consequences of their actions and would have an idea of wether they would want to be subject to those consequences.
The man has only decided what he would like happen to himself. Why should he feel obliged to treat anyone else with the same care? You make that leap as if it is self-evident. But it's not - his preferences for himself are not mandatory on him for his treatment of others, if materialism is true. It is mandatory if Christianity is true, for it is part of its prime directive, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'.This, wether they want to admit it or not, is their morality. I dont see how any action caused by a human with foreknowledge of the outcome can be called amoral.
Not at all - it was His deliberate choice. The death of their children was part of their punishment. That does not mean it was a punishment on the children.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, the children were innocent of those crimes. But they were God's creations and so could be recalled when and how He chose. Just as many innocents today die in disasters, wars, etc.
Convenient that he chose to recall them at the same time he ordered their parents slaughtered.
Hmm. Identify these absolute tools that are used to make subjective standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You have not established any of these notions as being a moral standard. Indeed, you say that there are no such absolute standards.
There are no absolute standards, but there are tools which are applicable to creating a human standard. There is no absolute standard for building a house, but there are man made standards for how a house should be built.
Only if there is indeed a morality - what people should and should not do to others. You have yet to show what that is and how you determine it. All I get from your posts is that there is a myriad of moralities, individual and societal.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where does evidence and logic tell us informed consent is an inviolable standard?
I would think it follows that if morality is what people should and should not do to others, then an aspect of that is wether or not the others have an informed consent of what is being done to them.
Which is to admit the paedophile is no more immoral than the philanthropist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Well, that is progress. The atheist materialist says their understanding of life, its morality, etc, is purely individual. That there is no right and wrong outside of their own opinions.
The atheist materialist recognises that while it may have its own ideas on morality and life, societies may be different. However, while it may be more practical to just go along with societies ideas on morality without question, the atheist materilist recognises that morality is a fluid constantly redefining idea, and that s/he may have an opportunity to influence societies idea of morality.
You may well labour for the advancement of your morality. What you cannot do is logically condemn any one else's.
Slavery was never the ideal - it was always something to be avoided if possible:Hence at one time women couldn't vote, now they can, contraceptions was illegal, now its not and at one you could own slaves in the knowledge it was support by the christian bible while now it is seen as a pretty horrible thing to do.
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.
There are various economic systems in history, some more just than others. Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.
But I think you might be thinking of the African Slave Trade type of slavery. That was unmitigated evil - the kidnapping and enslavement of innocents. The type of slavery permitted in Mosaic Israel was altogether different. It was a period of slavery in exchange for debt cancellation and ended at a pre-agreed time.0 -
-
-
Only if atheists are the only ones against murder. Read my post again. All I'm saying is that atheists do condemn lots of things.
Apologies, I misread your post somehow.
wolfsbane wrote:Indeed they do. The debate here is about whether those personal feelings carry any moral weight for anyone else.wolfsbane wrote:That still leaves the materialist without any rational cause to condemn anything.
This sounds like you're saying the opposite; materialist are wrong to make personal moral choices based on rationale because it's impossible to rationalise any moral choices.wolfsbane wrote:Christians endeavour to follow the rules of the Bible, as best they understand them. That understanding may change in a few examples, but that does not mean the Biblical teaching changes. It is absolute.
Biblical teachings have changed as religious leaders reinterpret the rules. You might say the actual text doesn't change, but that's not really the issue. I'll agree that some core teachings haven't changed (no stealing, no rape, no adultery, no murder, etc.) but you have to admit; many of the same core rules have not changed in society either.wolfsbane wrote:The rules for the atheist, however, change all the time and are indeed composed of millions of self-contradictory items. Their rules change, not their interpretation of the rules, so there is a vast difference.
The rules for an atheist change, it's true, but I don't think they change as constantly or drastically as you are making out.
As for self-contradictory items, the Bible contains many contradictions. It's famous for it. This is because different men, with different interpretations of God's will wrote the Bible, similar to how different men came up with differing rules for society separate from religion.
The rules change for Christians too, as they are often told by religious leaders how the Bible should be translated. Where they're not told by religious leaders, they're informed by historians, transcribers and translators who try to provide translation from ancient texts, many mistakes have been made, both in the translation and even in the writing down of the Bible over the years. So the difference isn't as vast as you have been trying to make out. There is nothing absolute about the Bible as, ultimately, it is the product of humans and is as inherently flawed as they are.How so?
The bible is based on the testimony of Human Beings, simple example is the Book Of Genesis has different accounts of creation. How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure which is the right one???
The Christian-Juedo God is defined as being absolute, thus He is absolute. However, the bible is a whole other kettle of fish. For the Bible to be absolute it would require it to be written by God/Jesus : it isn't,
looks like you beat me to it! :P0 -
Mark Hamill said:
You may well show it to be better thought through than some other - but can you show how yours is better than an equally well developed morality that condones what you condemn?Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's no more than an appeal to majority morality. You cannot show that that morality is any better/more valid than any other.
I'm sorry, but if even what is meant by morality cant be agreed by people then an individuals morality is a meaningless term. If society has a universally agreed notion of what morality is supposed to be, then one idea of morality can be shown to be better thought out, with more reason and logic than another by being shown to be closer to that universal notion of morality.
An atheistic society may argue that homosexuality is degenerate, a threat to public health and order, an evolutionary liability that should be excised from society.
A theistic society may argue against homosexuality on public health and order grounds and on their religious principles.
Another society may argue for the acceptance of homosexuality as just another natural form of sexuality and treat the public health and order aspect as not intrinsic to it.
Who is to say which morality is correct, if materialism is true?
If it removed a minority interest, that would not be so. Christians, for example, in Soviet or Islamic countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Effective for what? Society's peace? The elimination of dissidents would achieve that. Society's prosperity? Imperialism is very effective.
Elimination of dissedents would only serve to remove those complaining about a problem, it wouldn't get rid of problem meaning more would eventually come-therefore far better just to deal with the problem.
So you exchange the effectiveness of a morality for an individual for that of the society. And I imagine that of a society for that of the world. So only what works for the world as a whole is right, even if it goes against many individuals and societies?The effectiveness of morality is a measure of the maximisation of the average happiness of everyone in a society as a result of that morality. It might make one indivual very happy to rob a bank, but it would infringe on the happiness of many others. There are obviously more aspects than that, but I'm not going through everything.
Let's say the majority of the world were Muslim. The forced conversion or dhimmitude of the religious minorities and atheists would be effective for the peace of the world. Would that be the moral thing to do?
Good, we are further forward. The is no ought in materialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But why ought one to seek peace or prosperity? Why not go for a maximum of fun at other's expense, even if it ends in a hail of bullets at a police road-block? We all die at some time, why not after a lot of selfish fun? Morality is about the why, the ought - not about effectiveness.
Morality is only about the ought if you believe its absolute, if you believe it comes from god. But it doesn't, its an evolutionary device to make the societal life of humans easy, so its all about the effectiveness.
0 -
-
-
From the materialist position there is no ought, neither to be practical or impractical.
I dont know why you keep saying this. We keep telling you that morality can be practical, logical and make sense socially. The only one who seems to have issue with "ought" is you. Knowing that morality is useful for society isn't enough to you to follow it, you seem to need there to be some mighty judge who you cant escape from in order to for you to force yourself to be moral.Killing one's self with crack seems mighty impractical to most of us, but is a price worth the pleasure for others. As a theist, I can say why they ought not to do so. All the materialist can say is why he chooses not to do so - he can offer no moral reason to desist to the crack-head.
The materialist can of course say why it should not be done, and not just for moral reasons, but for health and social reasons too.So you are saying that society was immoral by having that morality. You vs Society. Your morality it seems is above society's - yet you claim morality exists only from society.
I never said it was only from the society, and since I don't believe in absolute morality or infallible beings, I am not agianst the idea of a societies morality being poorly thought out.OK, so society is not the originator of morality, only of a mass morality. But there is a criminal who has a morality different from yours and a society that has a morality different from your society's. Who is being immoral? The consistent materialist cannot say either.
If there is a consistent idea of what morality should be, then he can.The man has only decided what he would like happen to himself. Why should he feel obliged to treat anyone else with the same care? You make that leap as if it is self-evident. But it's not - his preferences for himself are not mandatory on him for his treatment of others, if materialism is true.
He still has knbowledge of what he does and what the outcomes are. Wether or not he cares is irrelevent, he is morally responsible for those actions (he caused them, so the morality of the outcomes reflect on him).It is mandatory if Christianity is true, for it is part of its prime directive, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'.
The prime directive of christianity is "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, Do not have any other gods before me." (exodus 20:2-20:17)Not at all - it was His deliberate choice. The death of their children was part of their punishment. That does not mean it was a punishment on the children.
Oh yes, I'm sure they didn't feel a thing being slaughtered :rolleyes:Hmm. Identify these absolute tools that are used to make subjective standards.
Who said anything about absolute tools? I just said there are tools which are applicable to making human standards. These tools can change, as human standards change-mud and sticks were once materials used for making dwellings, now we rely on steel and concrete.Only if there is indeed a morality - what people should and should not do to others. You have yet to show what that is and how you determine it. All I get from your posts is that there is a myriad of moralities, individual and societal.
There are myriad of moralities, hence different countries have different punishments for different crimes.Which is to admit the paedophile is no more immoral than the philanthropist.
No, its to admit that at one time slavery was moral, now its not.You may well labour for the advancement of your morality. What you cannot do is logically condemn any one else's.
Of course I can. Is that morality logical? What are the benefits of such a morality? What is it based on?Slavery was never the ideal - it was always something to be avoided if possible:
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.
Dont forget the next line: 1 Corinthians 7:22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. Just says dont worry about being a slave, nothing at all about wether its immoral to have any.But I think you might be thinking of the African Slave Trade type of slavery. That was unmitigated evil - the kidnapping and enslavement of innocents.
Slavery is slavery. Oh sure, some forms of slavery are...better behaved than others, but you are still talking about a situation where one person life and rights belong to another.
Oh there where differences sure, but slavery in the bible wasnt just a case of debt paying. For one, you couldnt put another Isrealite into slavery like this (Leviticus 25:44-46), Hebrew males would stay slaves for only 6 years, but wives and children they have during that time would still belong to their masters (Exodus 21:2-6), you could sell your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-11) and beating a slave to death was fine as long as they didn't die immediately (Exodus 21:20-21)The type of slavery permitted in Mosaic Israel was altogether different.0 -
You may well show it to be better thought through than some other - but can you show how yours is better than an equally well developed morality that condones what you condemn?
How can two different moralities be equally well developed if they come to two different conclusions?An atheistic society may argue that homosexuality is degenerate, a threat to public health and order, an evolutionary liability that should be excised from society.
A theistic society may argue against homosexuality on public health and order grounds and on their religious principles.
Another society may argue for the acceptance of homosexuality as just another natural form of sexuality and treat the public health and order aspect as not intrinsic to it.
Who is to say which morality is correct, if materialism is true? [/QUOTE]
Which ever morality can actual give evidence to support its position will be the one thats true.So you exchange the effectiveness of a morality for an individual for that of the society. And I imagine that of a society for that of the world. So only what works for the world as a whole is right, even if it goes against many individuals and societies?
Depends on why it goes against the moralities of those individuals and societiesLet's say the majority of the world were Muslim. The forced conversion or dhimmitude of the religious minorities and atheists would be effective for the peace of the world. Would that be the moral thing to do?
I fail to see how forced conversions would lead to a peaceful world.Good, we are further forward. The is no ought in materialism.
There is an "ought" in materialism, its just the same "ought" that is there when you are told you "ought" to eat your vegtables-there are logical and sensible reasons to do so, but the is no magic judge there to catch if you even think about not doing so (thats the problem you seem to have, not that there is no ought, just no eternal punishment for not doing so)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Here's one for those prone to believe in the objectivity of scientists, especially when they rubbish Creationist science. It's from the Skeptical Inquirer (emphasis mine):
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pathology_or_paradigm_shift/
Conclusion: Persisting Issues and the Future of H. floresiensis
Most probably, we are on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominid evolution.
—Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks (2005)
Like Johanson’s famous australopithecine Lucy, the anomalous Hobbits of Flores may soon transform our understanding of human evolution forever—perhaps even revolutionize the very definition of humanity. But, regrettably, the debate—and, thus, the course and character of science itself—has been hideously defaced by unprofessional jealousy, rancor, and ad hominem attacks.
Morwood has likened detractors to flat-earthers, for example, while Robert Eckhard, a distinguished member of Jacob’s team in 2006, has averred a “racist” effect to the new species model. Indeed, individuals on each side have accused their counterparts of not being “real scientists.” If not their personal ethics, then their professional duties to things larger than themselves—the institutions of dispassionate scientific research and public education in particular—should suffice to prevent these kinds of embarrassing sideshows from occurring or escalating in the future.
The pathology debate, according to Jungers, is “officially over.” Perhaps. But detractors continue to raise important questions. Why, for instance, has only one skull been found if the species lived on Flores for 70,000 years? Should the textbooks be rewritten based on that single cranium? Is it not peculiar that we have discovered only one tiny-brained species capable of using tools and that it was located only on the remote island of Flores? And although it’s true that tropical environments are less than conducive to molecular preservation, why should we assume that Hobbit DNA tests presenting only H. sapiens DNA were contaminated? No, the debates will continue, and, as anyone who both understands and respects the scientific process recognizes, they should not be discouraged.
Sound familiar?
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement