Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[SirRumpole]

I loosely follow this thread, it is good to see Value Collector and SirRumple have a pretty in-depth discussion with strongly opposing views and keep it relatively civil. (Not sure if there was previously a slanging match haha)

I don't think we slang each other off, in fact I enjoy the discussions we have had over a number of topics. It's never got personal as far as I can remember.

 

[grah33]

Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.

You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.

I expressed how we can have purpose before when I gave one simple example of "wanting to live life without fear" and the morality of the golden rule (a secular construct) would be the best way of achieving that goal, and determining whether actions were right or wrong would be based on whether they complied with the golden rule or not. The Scientific American article gave another example, which you simply laughed off. In reference to William Lane Craig's assertion that non-believers living in a universe without purpose and which will eventually end should not care that there is torture in this world, the response from his debating opponent was: “This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them, it matters to their family, and it matters to us.”

You are trapped in a fallacious paradox, just like Zeno and his Dichotomy Paradox (infinite number of halved distances). You are like Zeno arguing with his fellow philosophers that it is impossible for them to walk from their homes to the temple because of the Dichotomy Paradox. His fellow philosophers laugh in bemused amusement, because they have just done that this morning and have done it every morning for the past several years.

You see secularists do have morality and do know how to differentiate right from wrong. It is a fact. The morality of secularism is there in the writings of the great philosophers and humanists. Your claims of the impossibility of that is absurd, just like Zeno's claim.

But what we haven't seen is any example of non secular morality. Grah suggested that it is revealed to us through prayer (or words to that effect). Yet we have not seen any example of this morality that differs from the secular morality of the time. The morality of those who pray is no different to those who do not pray as far as I can see. The popes and church leaders involved in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the torture and burning of so-called witches no doubt prayed, but still managed to commit vile acts. They reason they could do such acts is not because they had some special morality revealed to them, but because they used examples from the OT Scriptures as a guide rather than their own secular morality and humanity. We see the same within Islam. The justification for atrocities is based on the writings of Mohammed.

You see there is only secular morality. That which we as humans have developed over our evolutionary existence. Imperfect, but we are always striving to perfect it. We have purpose in our own lives and so do not need to invent some designing agent to imbue us with purpose. We have seen no new morality emanating from those who claim there is a designing agent. All they have ever given us is a regurgitation of what we already know to be morally correct.

I am really done arguing this issue. You can act like Zeno and insist that what we actually have and demonstrate on a daily basis is impossible for us to have. Until you free yourself from that fallacious paradox argument is pointless.

There you go again. Yes God said some good things , we know that, but also did and ordered others to do some vile things.

You continue to be apologetic to these vile actions. Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies.

Humanity is now a rodent infestation.

All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons.

Yes, we know the good reason. They only way they can reconcile God committing or ordering others to commit vile acts with their own morality is to say their morality doesn't apply to God. It's the house of cards fear I dealt with before.

God was bringing justice, not acting wicked as you say. If they continued to live, they would torture themselves. If you can understand the idea behind population culling then this shouldn't be a problem for you. We do not agree here. I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.

And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.

 

[bellenuit]

God was bringing justice, not acting wicked as you say. If they continued to live, they would torture themselves. If you can understand the idea behind population culling then this shouldn't be a problem for you. We do not agree here. I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.

And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.

Let's make sure I get this correctly. You are justifying God killing innocent infants based on some supposition, with no evidence to support it, that if they continued to live they would torture themselves.

So based on the Christian teachings we are told that God created man in his own image. That God shows unconditional infinite love and forgiveness for his creation. But then decides to cull them for population control, killing many innocents and for those who may have sinned, showing no forgiveness. Slaughter and torture is what he has in store for them.

Unconditional infinite love, unconditional infinite forgiveness, torture, murder, slaughter of innocents. Seems your Church may be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

 

[cynic]

Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.

Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.

 

[Value Collector]

I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.

.

It seems to me that religious people just assume anything their god character does must be good, he can do the most vile things and it is good by definition because he did it.

Seems silly to me.

 

[cynic]

The aforedesribed character, sounds a heck of a lot like Deacon Dick Dawkins.

 

[Wysiwyg]

And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.

Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.

 

[Value Collector]

Crazy Cartoon, designed to scare people into becoming Jehovah witness.

 

[grah33]

Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.

I never said I'm more superior than other human beings. I'm equal to other human beings , but I'm not equal to God. My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, if there is a good reason to do so.

 

[grah33]

Let's make sure I get this correctly. You are justifying God killing innocent infants based on some supposition, with no evidence to support it, that if they continued to live they would torture themselves.

So based on the Christian teachings we are told that God created man in his own image. That God shows unconditional infinite love and forgiveness for his creation. But then decides to cull them for population control, killing many innocents and for those who may have sinned, showing no forgiveness. Slaughter and torture is what he has in store for them.

Unconditional infinite love, unconditional infinite forgiveness, torture, murder, slaughter of innocents. Seems your Church may be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

It seems to me that religious people just assume anything their god character does must be good, he can do the most vile things and it is good by definition because he did it.

Seems silly to me.

I didn't say God was doing population control. My point is that if secular moralists understand population control and abortion and the death penalty (the purpose of each), then you shouldn't have any problem with these stories.

Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood, and yet the love of God. St Paul mentioned some of those harsh stories too, but also the love of Christ. So we would go on forever disagreeing with each other.

You skepticism leads you to this conclusion. While my faith leads me to my views. We simply disagree with each other in our views here, so let's peacefully do that. You'll find atheists will have your feelings about it, while believers will have similar feelings to mine. But I understand where you are coming from, as those stories aren't pretty.

That aside, the OT is very important to the NT. Jesus pointed out quite a few verses about Himself in the OT. Also, related to this, He warned of another devastation that would occur in the future, after morality collapses altogether.

Not trying to do battle against you in any way. I see this as a discussion.

 

[Value Collector]

My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, .

He can take it, but would that be moral?

I mean simply creating life wouldn't give you the right to kill or torture that life just because you created it.

I mean if I discovered some scientific way of creating the equivalent of a human in a lab, once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?

 

[grah33]

Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.

Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.

is that one or 2 people now? Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough. No one is perfect of course. does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums? Hopefully they can deactivate it. I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people. In case it gets people frustrated or something like that. or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.

 

[grah33]

He can take it, but would that be moral?

I mean simply creating life wouldn't give you the right to kill or torture that life just because you created it.

Why not VC? Take an abortion. You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).

 

[Value Collector]

Why not VC? Take an abortion. You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).

you seemed to have missed the value of this sentence "once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?"


--------------

When have I ever said late term abortions are ok?

But two reasons I think abortions in early pregnancy abortions are ok.

1, There is a big difference between a zygote and fully formed human baby, eg I don't consider either sperm or eggs to be human, neither do I think they become human the moment they combine, I think your human rights start to kick in when you are much further down the line in terms of development.

2, Every one has the right to their own body, and can decide how its used and what risks they want to take. A 20 year old guy doesn't have the right to demand his mother give him a kidney, even if he needs a kidney to survive and will die without out it, in the same way an unborn baby doesn't have the right to use his mothers body even though it will die without the use of that body.

If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.

 

[SirRumpole]

If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.

Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk. This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.

 

[Value Collector]

Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk.

Saying yes to sex, is not the same as yes to pregnancy.

Pregnancy may be a risk involved with sex, but simply having sex is not a commitment to have a baby.

This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.

People go and get sporting injuries fixed at hospital too.

Saying yes to a game of football isn't a commitment to live with an open wound for ever. you will go to the emergency room and get that stitched up, you will get an antibiotic shot to prevent further complications etc.

 

[cynic]

Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk. This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.

In the case of rape, whilst do I recognise that the woman isn't to blame for the pregnancy, the foetus is also an innocent party to the situation!

 

[bellenuit]

Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.

Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.

If referring to me, you are not on ignore. Just as I said in my previous response to you, I find it pointless to further argue with you on the morality issue as you have defined morality as only possible if one has purpose, but then ignore any possibility of purpose other than in the cosmological sense. I do not buy that argument, but cannot argue with you so long as your thinking is constrained by the parameters you have set. As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.

 

[cynic]

is that one or 2 people now? Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough. No one is perfect of course. does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums? Hopefully they can deactivate it. I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people. In case it gets people frustrated or something like that. or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.

One has openly declared it,but, I would be very surprised if others haven't decided that they'd prefer to exclude my posts from view. For example, devotees of Deacon Dick Dawkins have been known to react strongly to anyone expressing their contempt for him and his antitheist sermons.
(Strangely enough, it seems that one such person, had no problem (unfairly in my opinion) levelling an accusation of unseemly behaviour, at a (sadly now deceased) member of the Catholic religion, who was so highly respected for her charitable works, that she had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.)

As to the functioning of the ignore facility, I cannot advise on the scope, and/or reversibility, of its effects, as my preference has always been to never use it, irrespective of how disagreeable and unsavoury, some viewpoints may seem.

 

[bellenuit]

I didn't say God was doing population control. My point is that if secular moralists understand population control and abortion and the death penalty (the purpose of each), then you shouldn't have any problem with these stories.

Not so. Population control should be undertaken by encouraging people to not conceive in the first place. Not by slaughtering people after they have been born. I certainly do not regard late term pregnancies as warranted other than if it necessary to save the life of the mother. In general I am opposed to abortion if it is purely used as a means of birth control, when other means are available. I don't believe in the death penalty.

Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood, and yet the love of God. St Paul mentioned some of those harsh stories too, but also the love of Christ. So we would go on forever disagreeing with each other.

So what. Eva Braun mentioned the love Hitler had shown her and to many others.

You skepticism leads you to this conclusion. While my faith leads me to my views.

And this is the crux of the matter. I really would have had no issue with what you have contributed except when you insisted that Christianity showed perfect morality. It should be now obvious that it doesn't and it is simple to prove. Christian morality that doesn't condone vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality that does condone vile acts of God. Thus the latter cannot be perfect.

You do realise that if Hitler had said he had been spoken to by God (just like many others in the Christian church claim - Pat Robertson for example) and had acted on God's instructions, every single atrocity that he had committed could be justified on the basis that similar actions had previously been condoned by God.

That is why Steven Weinberg opined: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

So true.