Our moral systems are based on what we perceive to be our meaning/purpose. In a religious scenario this is easy, one lives to serve their particular god/scripture etc. Aetheists/Agnostics have no such driver and have to define their meaning/purpose for themselves to then determine what morality is.
If it gives you some sort of comfort to seek a higher purpose in life and to live by a personal moral code then feel free. I'm just saying, I don't see any difference between what you guys are doing and what religious people do.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:20 am
by nietzsche
mrswdk wrote:It gets really boring on all these OT threads when people start talking about one thing and then half way through the conversation they're suddenly talking about something completely different and saying 'oh you're being too literal about my earlier posts'.
You guys were originally talking about moral rules, moral systems, the purpose and meaning of life (universal concepts) and now you seem to just be saying 'what you personally want = the meaning of your life'. So now all you're trying to say is that everyone wants something? Because obviously everyone has things that they want, but that is totally unrelated to the ideas of morality and the purpose of life that were being thrown around earlier in this thread.
*sigh*
and to think i was posting from the phone..
well, i tried. good night. at leat i enjoyed my cigs.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:21 am
by nietzsche
irreverent cunt.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:37 am
by tzor
jonesthecurl wrote:which is more logical, something came from god, but god came from nothing - or something came from nothing with no god in the middle?
Logic can be wonderful at times. All cows are purple Flossy is a cow therefore ...
First of all, the whole "from nothing" is an assumption. If it is wrong, the rest follows as also being wrong.
If you want to invoke Occam I shall invoke Holmes, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The Sign of the Four Chap. 6, p. 111
Re: Creationists
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:19 am
by jonesthecurl
tzor wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:which is more logical, something came from god, but god came from nothing - or something came from nothing with no god in the middle?
Logic can be wonderful at times. All cows are purple Flossy is a cow therefore ...
First of all, the whole "from nothing" is an assumption. If it is wrong, the rest follows as also being wrong.
If you want to invoke Occam I shall invoke Holmes, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The Sign of the Four Chap. 6, p. 111
Hey, don't pick holes in MY logic, I was merely pointing out how silly a question was.
Now I'm gonna quote R.A.H. "It is impossible to learn anything through logic that you did not already know."
Re: Creationists
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:43 pm
by tzor
jonesthecurl wrote:Hey, don't pick holes in MY logic, I was merely pointing out how silly a question was.
Sorry, I was just using an excuse to stealth quote Tom Baker.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:43 pm
by jonesthecurl
"You are the living proof that size of mouth is in inverse ration to the size of brain". (Dr Who, when Douglas Adams was script editor and Tom was the Doctor)
Re: Creationists
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:13 pm
by rishaed
TA1LGUNN3R wrote: okay...All I can say is maybe it'll sink in eventually.
"It no longer will change"...? C'mon, guy, try studying a little history. If you think the bible you have now is in any way, shape, or form an actual account of history, then I don't know what to tell you. The selection process of what went into the bible and what was tossed alone should convince you, not to mention the accounts of stuff that never happened (e.g. mass slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt).
-TG
Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened. However: 1. How are going to prove that? Where are your sources? How can you prove that your sources are reliable, and how can you prove that the source proving your source is reliable (ad infinitum) This is the problem with relativism. You can't. Because the first step just ain't there. Now, you say the selection process should convince me, but Taking apart the Bible into Old and New Testaments: 1. Is it so strange to keep the writings of just the major apostles. (Paul, Peter, James, John. Don't know about Jude) Along with the four Accounts of Jesus until just after Resurrection, and Said Disciples account of what would happen after: Seems pretty logical to me. Also Old Testament without Rabbinical writings is correct. If you wanted to include everything, you couldn't even fit that into something people could even read/ transcribe/ study, Its like saying you wanted to transcribe the world. 2. Relativism (Rationalism) vs. Absolutes: I have a basis because of Absolutes. Because I believe in absolutes if A is absolutely right then Anti-A is absolutely wrong. If you don't believe in absolutes, but instead relativism it looks like this: According to my rational A is right, but I can't be certain that Anti-A is definitely wrong. Aka: You can't prove that i'm wrong, because according to many of you truth is relative. Black and White don't really exist they are just a shade of grey to you.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:27 pm
by TA1LGUNN3R
rishaed wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote: okay...All I can say is maybe it'll sink in eventually.
"It no longer will change"...? C'mon, guy, try studying a little history. If you think the bible you have now is in any way, shape, or form an actual account of history, then I don't know what to tell you. The selection process of what went into the bible and what was tossed alone should convince you, not to mention the accounts of stuff that never happened (e.g. mass slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt).
-TG
Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened. However: 1. How are going to prove that? Where are your sources? How can you prove that your sources are reliable, and how can you prove that the source proving your source is reliable (ad infinitum) This is the problem with relativism. You can't. Because the first step just ain't there. Now, you say the selection process should convince me, but Taking apart the Bible into Old and New Testaments: 1. Is it so strange to keep the writings of just the major apostles. (Paul, Peter, James, John. Don't know about Jude) Along with the four Accounts of Jesus until just after Resurrection, and Said Disciples account of what would happen after: Seems pretty logical to me. Also Old Testament without Rabbinical writings is correct. If you wanted to include everything, you couldn't even fit that into something people could even read/ transcribe/ study, Its like saying you wanted to transcribe the world. 2. Relativism (Rationalism) vs. Absolutes: I have a basis because of Absolutes. Because I believe in absolutes if A is absolutely right then Anti-A is absolutely wrong. If you don't believe in absolutes, but instead relativism it looks like this: According to my rational A is right, but I can't be certain that Anti-A is definitely wrong. Aka: You can't prove that i'm wrong, because according to many of you truth is relative. Black and White don't really exist they are just a shade of grey to you.
There has never been archaelogical evidence of ancient Israelite peoples in Egypt. No artifacts, writings, etc. have ever been found. There are no Egyptian records which reference Israelite slaves or even non-slaves. This is common knowledge, and the only account which says otherwise is the Bible.
If an entire nation was enslaved, there should be a lot of junk and records proving their existence.
As for the rest, the earliest gospels weren't written until at least 130 years after the supposed events of Christ's wanderings and crucifixion (iirc). There were no Roman records, either.
And the only absolutes are the physical laws of the universe, e.g. thermodynamics, forces, etc.
rishaed wrote:Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened.
I think you can reasonably say that. Even if the story is true, you can reasonably say that because of the natural tendency to inflate stories over time. Was it really "slavery" or just crappy working conditions? Remember that the original desire of the Moses was to get the people away for a while so they could do something totally in opposition with the predominant religion of the area (the sacrifice of animals sacred to the Egyptians).
Given the fact that a lot of the story was reinterpreted over the centuries (the location of the "reed sea" for example which people just assumed was the "red sea") location of a group of people who were in some odd location within the Egyptian kingdoms is like looking for a needle in a haystack. More importantly, this was a people who were clearly becoming assimilated at the time (this was another reason for leaving). It's not like you are going to see modern Hebrew in the middle of Egyptian architecture.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:30 pm
by rishaed
tzor wrote:
rishaed wrote:Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened.
I think you can reasonably say that. Even if the story is true, you can reasonably say that because of the natural tendency to inflate stories over time. Was it really "slavery" or just crappy working conditions? Remember that the original desire of the Moses was to get the people away for a while so they could do something totally in opposition with the predominant religion of the area (the sacrifice of animals sacred to the Egyptians).
Given the fact that a lot of the story was reinterpreted over the centuries (the location of the "reed sea" for example which people just assumed was the "red sea") location of a group of people who were in some odd location within the Egyptian kingdoms is like looking for a needle in a haystack. More importantly, this was a people who were clearly becoming assimilated at the time (this was another reason for leaving). It's not like you are going to see modern Hebrew in the middle of Egyptian architecture.
I've watched a few documentaries stating that the crossing site was at the Sea of Aquaba, and followed a path to a mountain in Saudi Arabia. Now the first documentary is older, but the second is independent of the first and shows slightly different things. The first person got arrested and deported from Saudi cause he entered illegally, and by the time the second docu showed up the mountain was walled of by the government.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:26 pm
by rishaed
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
rishaed wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote: okay...All I can say is maybe it'll sink in eventually.
"It no longer will change"...? C'mon, guy, try studying a little history. If you think the bible you have now is in any way, shape, or form an actual account of history, then I don't know what to tell you. The selection process of what went into the bible and what was tossed alone should convince you, not to mention the accounts of stuff that never happened (e.g. mass slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt).
-TG
Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened. However: 1. How are going to prove that? Where are your sources? How can you prove that your sources are reliable, and how can you prove that the source proving your source is reliable (ad infinitum) This is the problem with relativism. You can't. Because the first step just ain't there. Now, you say the selection process should convince me, but Taking apart the Bible into Old and New Testaments: 1. Is it so strange to keep the writings of just the major apostles. (Paul, Peter, James, John. Don't know about Jude) Along with the four Accounts of Jesus until just after Resurrection, and Said Disciples account of what would happen after: Seems pretty logical to me. Also Old Testament without Rabbinical writings is correct. If you wanted to include everything, you couldn't even fit that into something people could even read/ transcribe/ study, Its like saying you wanted to transcribe the world. 2. Relativism (Rationalism) vs. Absolutes: I have a basis because of Absolutes. Because I believe in absolutes if A is absolutely right then Anti-A is absolutely wrong. If you don't believe in absolutes, but instead relativism it looks like this: According to my rational A is right, but I can't be certain that Anti-A is definitely wrong. Aka: You can't prove that i'm wrong, because according to many of you truth is relative. Black and White don't really exist they are just a shade of grey to you.
There has never been archaelogical evidence of ancient Israelite peoples in Egypt. No artifacts, writings, etc. have ever been found. There are no Egyptian records which reference Israelite slaves or even non-slaves. This is common knowledge, and the only account which says otherwise is the Bible.
If an entire nation was enslaved, there should be a lot of junk and records proving their existence.
As for the rest, the earliest gospels weren't written until at least 130 years after the supposed events of Christ's wanderings and crucifixion (iirc). There were no Roman records, either.
And the only absolutes are the physical laws of the universe, e.g. thermodynamics, forces, etc.
-TG
For slaves why would you record nationality? It makes no sense. Also on terms of absolutes by your own words: Since the only absolutes to you are the laws of nature then: I can't be sure your username on CC is TailGunner(A), and you can't be absolutely sure your username is NOT Rishaed (Anti-A), even though you know That the only person who the Tailgunner account on CC belongs to is you currently. Neither can you be sure that you are absolutely alive right now, because you know absolutes state that if you are alive (A) you are not Dead (anti-A). Similarly If you are a Human (A) you are not a lion (anti-A) or anything that is not human. Pretty sure that absolutes exist, but you can keep living in your round room without a doorway or light
Re: Creationists
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:20 am
by AndyDufresne
rishaed wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
rishaed wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote: okay...All I can say is maybe it'll sink in eventually.
"It no longer will change"...? C'mon, guy, try studying a little history. If you think the bible you have now is in any way, shape, or form an actual account of history, then I don't know what to tell you. The selection process of what went into the bible and what was tossed alone should convince you, not to mention the accounts of stuff that never happened (e.g. mass slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt).
-TG
Ok, so you say: Mass Slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt never happened. However: 1. How are going to prove that? Where are your sources? How can you prove that your sources are reliable, and how can you prove that the source proving your source is reliable (ad infinitum) This is the problem with relativism. You can't. Because the first step just ain't there. Now, you say the selection process should convince me, but Taking apart the Bible into Old and New Testaments: 1. Is it so strange to keep the writings of just the major apostles. (Paul, Peter, James, John. Don't know about Jude) Along with the four Accounts of Jesus until just after Resurrection, and Said Disciples account of what would happen after: Seems pretty logical to me. Also Old Testament without Rabbinical writings is correct. If you wanted to include everything, you couldn't even fit that into something people could even read/ transcribe/ study, Its like saying you wanted to transcribe the world. 2. Relativism (Rationalism) vs. Absolutes: I have a basis because of Absolutes. Because I believe in absolutes if A is absolutely right then Anti-A is absolutely wrong. If you don't believe in absolutes, but instead relativism it looks like this: According to my rational A is right, but I can't be certain that Anti-A is definitely wrong. Aka: You can't prove that i'm wrong, because according to many of you truth is relative. Black and White don't really exist they are just a shade of grey to you.
There has never been archaelogical evidence of ancient Israelite peoples in Egypt. No artifacts, writings, etc. have ever been found. There are no Egyptian records which reference Israelite slaves or even non-slaves. This is common knowledge, and the only account which says otherwise is the Bible.
If an entire nation was enslaved, there should be a lot of junk and records proving their existence.
As for the rest, the earliest gospels weren't written until at least 130 years after the supposed events of Christ's wanderings and crucifixion (iirc). There were no Roman records, either.
And the only absolutes are the physical laws of the universe, e.g. thermodynamics, forces, etc.
-TG
For slaves why would you record nationality? It makes no sense. Also on terms of absolutes by your own words: Since the only absolutes to you are the laws of nature then: I can't be sure your username on CC is TailGunner(A), and you can't be absolutely sure your username is NOT Rishaed (Anti-A), even though you know That the only person who the Tailgunner account on CC belongs to is you currently. Neither can you be sure that you are absolutely alive right now, because you know absolutes state that if you are alive (A) you are not Dead (anti-A). Similarly If you are a Human (A) you are not a lion (anti-A) or anything that is not human. Pretty sure that absolutes exist, but you can keep living in your round room without a doorway or light
--Andy
Re: Creationists
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:56 am
by Phatscotty
mrswdk wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.
Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.
It's also perfectly possible, perhaps even likely that without purpose more lives become depressed and empty and just want everyone else to feel their pain.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:57 am
by Phatscotty
jonesthecurl wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: For starters, which seems more logical; something came from nothing something came from something
which is more logical, something came from god, but god came from nothing - or something came from nothing with no god in the middle?
{Paging Mr Occam}
That's what God is by definition
Re: Creationists
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:02 am
by mrswdk
Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.
Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.
It's also perfectly possible, perhaps even likely that without purpose more lives become depressed and empty and just want everyone else to feel their pain.
Those kinds of betas will end up like that whether or not they think there is a higher meaning in life. They get angry and lash out because they can't make their life happen the way they want it to, not because they think their life has no meaning.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:14 am
by jonesthecurl
Phatscotty wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: For starters, which seems more logical; something came from nothing something came from something
which is more logical, something came from god, but god came from nothing - or something came from nothing with no god in the middle?
{Paging Mr Occam}
That's what God is by definition
What, something that came from nothing? Is that "logical"?
Re: Creationists
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:34 am
by notyou2
Re: Creationists
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:28 pm
by Metsfanmax
In regards to what was discussed earlier, especially to mrswdk:
Pain is not subjective, and is not the only measure used to determine if a medicine is effective or not. Bad analogy.
Gotta think about the rest though.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:59 pm
by mrswdk
Nah, I still don't buy it. We do things because we want to, not because we ought to, and just because most or all people want something does not automatically mean that there is any 'ought' about it.
People form societies in order to work together for mutual benefit. Working out how best to produce that mutual benefit and creating a system that will ensure this helps to achieve that overall benefit. This system, however, is not a system of moral rules. It is a set of rules designed to help the members of that system maximize their own advantage. They produce and participate in this system because they wish to, not because they have to.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:35 pm
by Metsfanmax
mrswdk wrote:Nah, I still don't buy it. We do things because we want to, not because we ought to, and just because most or all people want something does not automatically mean that there is any 'ought' about it.
Then you likely missed the point, which was that what we call 'ought' can be seen merely as a restatement of what it is that people want to do. We ought to do that which helps people get what they want, not because of some special rules from God, but simply because it is what people want. The relevant question then is whether you are under any obligation to help other people get what they want. But that is a separate issue we can discuss if you like.
People form societies in order to work together for mutual benefit. Working out how best to produce that mutual benefit and creating a system that will ensure this helps to achieve that overall benefit. This system, however, is not a system of moral rules. It is a set of rules designed to help the members of that system maximize their own advantage. They produce and participate in this system because they wish to, not because they have to.
What is the difference between a "system of moral rules" and a "set of rules designed to ... maximize ... advantage?" To many modern moral theorists (utilitarians), there isn't really a difference. I think that part of the problem throughout this discussion is that you consistently envision moral rules as some sort of high-handed unbreakable rules describing the scales of cosmic justice. (There are some people that study ethics who believe that, but not everyone.) But really, moral rules are just a set of principles designed to help us ensure mutual benefit. Indeed, pretty much all contemporary ethical theory (consequentialist or deontological) is founded, in some way or another, on the golden rule (categorical imperative for those who wish to be fancy), which itself is merely a maxim designed to guarantee mutual benefit.
Most of the useful modern study of ethics is simply figuring out what principles we should live by to maximize those societal benefits.
Re: Creationists
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:21 am
by mrswdk
Metsfanmax wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Nah, I still don't buy it. We do things because we want to, not because we ought to, and just because most or all people want something does not automatically mean that there is any 'ought' about it.
Then you likely missed the point, which was that what we call 'ought' can be seen merely as a restatement of what it is that people want to do. We ought to do that which helps people get what they want, not because of some special rules from God, but simply because it is what people want. The relevant question then is whether you are under any obligation to help other people get what they want. But that is a separate issue we can discuss if you like.
I'd assumed we were already discussing that question. What're thoughts on this one then?
