We don't hurt or kill people at random because of empathy. Not because someone is told it's not a good thing.
ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. All cards off the table with the crazy people.
Not according to them. Just as in cultures that eat their fellow man. They don't see it as wrong. We see it as wrong. Who's to say which of us is correct? Just because we don't like what someone else does---doesn't mean what they do is wrong. Unless you have a moral code that says so. Then you have to ask where that comes from. Etc. etc.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiderpug:
We don't hurt or kill people at random because of empathy. Not because someone is told it's not a good thing.
ISIS is an apocalyptic cult. All cards off the table with the crazy people.
Not according to them. Just as in cultures that eat their fellow man. They don't see it as wrong. We see it as wrong. Who's to say which of us is correct? Just because we don't like what someone else does---doesn't mean what they do is wrong. Unless you have a moral code that says so. Then you have to ask where that comes from. Etc. etc.
A godless universe in the minds of the religious is impossible but is very much capable. I aunderstand and appreciate that because in the grand scheme of the universe, there is no true scientific meaning., no purpose, no comprehension. Just live, laugh eat and enjoy the ride. Life is all over the universe created by scientific events that are beyond our calculation.
I'd like for you to read or watch some of the spectacular events that take place in the universe every split second the simply overwhelm life on earth.
"Journey To The Edge Of The Universe" is a very good start.
I do respect your beliefs but I would also encourage you to examine our universe on a more practical level.
Earth not unique and special. Trust me.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
A godless universe in the minds of the religious is impossible but is very much capable. I aunderstand and appreciate that because in the grand scheme of the universe, there is no true scientific meaning., no purpose, no comprehension. Just live, laugh eat and enjoy the ride. Life is all over the universe created by scientific events that are beyond our calculation.
I'd like for you to read or watch some of the spectacular events that take place in the universe every split second the simply overwhelm life on earth.
"Journey To The Edge Of The Universe" is a very good start.
I do respect your beliefs but I would also encourage you to examine our universe on a more practical level.
Earth not unique and special. Trust me.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
So give us your non-wacko explanation of how life began. Life coming from non-life. Molecules self-assembling randomly into living cells?
Which came first, the protein or the ribosomes? Because the ribosomes are made of proteins. Proteins are made from ribosomes.
And what about DNA? You think that DNA was formed by random chance? Do you believe that is possible. Tell us how life began Dogbite, and i don't want to hear anything like "well we're here so it must have happened" bs.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Creationism = Full Throttle Wacko
So give us your non-wacko explanation of how life began. Life coming from non-life. Molecules self-assembling randomly into living cells?
Which came first, the protein or the ribosomes? Because the ribosomes are made of proteins. Proteins are made from ribosomes.
And what about DNA? You think that DNA was formed by random chance? Do you believe that is possible. Tell us how life began Dogbite, and i don't want to hear anything like "well we're here so it must have happened" bs.
A godless universe in the minds of the religious is impossible but is very much capable. I aunderstand and appreciate that because in the grand. scheme of the universe, there is no true scientific meaning.,
(Is that a true statement?) no purpose,no comprehension. (wat?) Just live, (or kill) laugh (at the homeless) eat (babies) and enjoy the ride (on pre-teen girls). Life is all over the universe created by scientific events that are beyond our calculation.
I'd like for you to read or watch some of the spectacular events that take place in the universe every split second the simply overwhelm life on earth.
"Journey To The Edge Of The Universe" is a very good start.
I do respect your beliefs but I would also encourage you to examine our universe on a more practical level.
Earth not unique and special. Trust me.
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
A godless universe in the minds of the religious is impossible but is very much capable. I aunderstand and appreciate that because in the grand. scheme of the universe, there is no true scientific meaning.,
(Is that a true statement?) no purpose,no comprehension. (wat?) Just live, (or kill) laugh (at the homeless) eat (babies) and enjoy the ride (on pre-teen girls). Life is all over the universe created by scientific events that are beyond our calculation.
I'd like for you to read or watch some of the spectacular events that take place in the universe every split second the simply overwhelm life on earth.
"Journey To The Edge Of The Universe" is a very good start.
I do respect your beliefs but I would also encourage you to examine our universe on a more practical level.
Earth not unique and special. Trust me.
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
Not according to them. Just as in cultures that eat their fellow man. They don't see it as wrong. We see it as wrong. Who's to say which of us is correct? Just because we don't like what someone else does---doesn't mean what they do is wrong. Unless you have a moral code that says so. Then you have to ask where that comes from. Etc. etc.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Not according to them. Just as in cultures that eat their fellow man. They don't see it as wrong. We see it as wrong. Who's to say which of us is correct? Just because we don't like what someone else does---doesn't mean what they do is wrong. Unless you have a moral code that says so. Then you have to ask where that comes from. Etc. etc.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
Exactly....i find it hilarious when atheists say there is no objective morality, yet they spend time talking about the evil in the world, evil committed by religious etc etc.
In the absence of God, there is no such as right/wrong/evil/good.
Quote Originally Posted by Balph:
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
Exactly....i find it hilarious when atheists say there is no objective morality, yet they spend time talking about the evil in the world, evil committed by religious etc etc.
In the absence of God, there is no such as right/wrong/evil/good.
But all that happened in that case was that the proportion of light-colored moths in the population decreased and the proportion of dark-colored moths increased. Light-colored moths never evolved into dark-colored moths. Taken as evidence of the power of natural selection and random mutation to produce macroevolutionary change, honestly, to call such evidence paltry would be to pay it an undue compliment.
Your answer indicates that you have no understanding of evolution and natural selection by mutation.Light moths could/would never evolve into dark because it would be genetically impossible BUT dark moths would have an advantage from eviron. pressures (predation) which would increase their % in the population as long as the ash was impacting the majority of the population.
Language,Laws,and Morality are Cultural Mores ,all learned and none Absolute
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
But all that happened in that case was that the proportion of light-colored moths in the population decreased and the proportion of dark-colored moths increased. Light-colored moths never evolved into dark-colored moths. Taken as evidence of the power of natural selection and random mutation to produce macroevolutionary change, honestly, to call such evidence paltry would be to pay it an undue compliment.
Your answer indicates that you have no understanding of evolution and natural selection by mutation.Light moths could/would never evolve into dark because it would be genetically impossible BUT dark moths would have an advantage from eviron. pressures (predation) which would increase their % in the population as long as the ash was impacting the majority of the population.
Language,Laws,and Morality are Cultural Mores ,all learned and none Absolute
How was your post an example of natural selection and random mutation causing macro evolutionary change?
It just showed that the light colored moths dying off and the dark colored moths increasing in populations.
If morality is simply Cultural mores and not absolute, then it logically follows what the Nazis did was not wrong. That is, gassing 6 million woman and babies because they were Jes was not wrong.
What ISIS do by cutting peoples heads off is not wrong
Bashing black people and putting them into slavery like what the 17th century white Americans did was not wrong.
If i came into your house and butchered your family in front of your face is not something that is wrong.
Using words such as right and wrong to describe moral actions is INCOHERENT if you claim morality is relative/subjective.
However, the very fact is, you dont actually live your life this way. None of you do.
It is hilarious how you all claim morality is relative/subjective, then post numerous threads in this sections condemning the actions of killers, rapists etc etc that are in the news.
Ask yourself, taste in food in subjective, do you condemn people for enjoying a food that you dont like the taste of? No, you dont because you realise and it is obvious that taste in food is subjective. If morality is the same (relative/subjective), then why do you condemn rapists, murderers, racists etc etc?
Quote Originally Posted by 666LES:
How was your post an example of natural selection and random mutation causing macro evolutionary change?
It just showed that the light colored moths dying off and the dark colored moths increasing in populations.
If morality is simply Cultural mores and not absolute, then it logically follows what the Nazis did was not wrong. That is, gassing 6 million woman and babies because they were Jes was not wrong.
What ISIS do by cutting peoples heads off is not wrong
Bashing black people and putting them into slavery like what the 17th century white Americans did was not wrong.
If i came into your house and butchered your family in front of your face is not something that is wrong.
Using words such as right and wrong to describe moral actions is INCOHERENT if you claim morality is relative/subjective.
However, the very fact is, you dont actually live your life this way. None of you do.
It is hilarious how you all claim morality is relative/subjective, then post numerous threads in this sections condemning the actions of killers, rapists etc etc that are in the news.
Ask yourself, taste in food in subjective, do you condemn people for enjoying a food that you dont like the taste of? No, you dont because you realise and it is obvious that taste in food is subjective. If morality is the same (relative/subjective), then why do you condemn rapists, murderers, racists etc etc?
How was your post an example of natural selection and random mutation causing macro evolutionary change?
It just showed that the light colored moths dying off and the dark colored moths increasing in populations.
If morality is simply Cultural mores and not absolute, then it logically follows what the Nazis did was not wrong. That is, gassing 6 million woman and babies because they were Jes was not wrong.
What ISIS do by cutting peoples heads off is not wrong
Bashing black people and putting them into slavery like what the 17th century white Americans did was not wrong.
If i came into your house and butchered your family in front of your face is not something that is wrong.
Using words such as right and wrong to describe moral actions is INCOHERENT if you claim morality is relative/subjective.
However, the very fact is, you dont actually live your life this way. None of you do.
It is hilarious how you all claim morality is relative/subjective, then post numerous threads in this sections condemning the actions of killers, rapists etc etc that are in the news.
Ask yourself, taste in food in subjective, do you condemn people for enjoying a food that you dont like the taste of? No, you dont because you realise and it is obvious that taste in food is subjective. If morality is the same (relative/subjective), then why do you condemn rapists, murderers, racists etc etc?
In the moth population the dark moths (pre-Industrial revolution) who were the result of 2 recessive genes,made up approx. 1% of the population.After the Ind.Rev. the dark moths made up apprx. 97% of the population.Genetic mutation resulting in macro-evolutionary(your word....not Darwin's) change to an entire population.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
How was your post an example of natural selection and random mutation causing macro evolutionary change?
It just showed that the light colored moths dying off and the dark colored moths increasing in populations.
If morality is simply Cultural mores and not absolute, then it logically follows what the Nazis did was not wrong. That is, gassing 6 million woman and babies because they were Jes was not wrong.
What ISIS do by cutting peoples heads off is not wrong
Bashing black people and putting them into slavery like what the 17th century white Americans did was not wrong.
If i came into your house and butchered your family in front of your face is not something that is wrong.
Using words such as right and wrong to describe moral actions is INCOHERENT if you claim morality is relative/subjective.
However, the very fact is, you dont actually live your life this way. None of you do.
It is hilarious how you all claim morality is relative/subjective, then post numerous threads in this sections condemning the actions of killers, rapists etc etc that are in the news.
Ask yourself, taste in food in subjective, do you condemn people for enjoying a food that you dont like the taste of? No, you dont because you realise and it is obvious that taste in food is subjective. If morality is the same (relative/subjective), then why do you condemn rapists, murderers, racists etc etc?
In the moth population the dark moths (pre-Industrial revolution) who were the result of 2 recessive genes,made up approx. 1% of the population.After the Ind.Rev. the dark moths made up apprx. 97% of the population.Genetic mutation resulting in macro-evolutionary(your word....not Darwin's) change to an entire population.
In the moth population the dark moths (pre-Industrial revolution) who were the result of 2 recessive genes,made up approx. 1% of the population.After the Ind.Rev. the dark moths made up apprx. 97% of the population.Genetic mutation resulting in macro-evolutionary(your word....not Darwin's) change to an entire population.
Do you know what macro evolutionary change even is? In this case, there were NO new genes and there was NO new species,
This is natural selection, but for macro evolutionary change.
Where on earth did i deny adaptations do not happen? Of course they happen. Changes happened, but they were LIMITED.
Quote Originally Posted by 666LES:
In the moth population the dark moths (pre-Industrial revolution) who were the result of 2 recessive genes,made up approx. 1% of the population.After the Ind.Rev. the dark moths made up apprx. 97% of the population.Genetic mutation resulting in macro-evolutionary(your word....not Darwin's) change to an entire population.
Do you know what macro evolutionary change even is? In this case, there were NO new genes and there was NO new species,
This is natural selection, but for macro evolutionary change.
Where on earth did i deny adaptations do not happen? Of course they happen. Changes happened, but they were LIMITED.
Exactly....i find it hilarious when atheists say there is no objective morality, yet they spend time talking about the evil in the world, evil committed by religious etc etc.
In the absence of God, there is no such as right/wrong/evil/good.
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Exactly....i find it hilarious when atheists say there is no objective morality, yet they spend time talking about the evil in the world, evil committed by religious etc etc.
In the absence of God, there is no such as right/wrong/evil/good.
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
Quote Originally Posted by Balph:
If there is no God, then there is no "good". There is no "evil". There is no "right". There is no "wrong". There are only opinions these. In your worldview, you cannot tell anyone what they are doing is wrong.
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
no doubt, can't believe what I just read in this thread, WOW
.
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
no doubt, can't believe what I just read in this thread, WOW
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
I am not talking about epistemology, rather ONTOLOGY.
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
I am not talking about epistemology, rather ONTOLOGY.
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
So you admit there are moral facts, ie, moral rights and wrongs?
What are these moral facts in the absence of God? remember, for something to be a fact, then it must be existing INDEPENDENT of human opinion and preference.
They existed before any sentient beings existed, and will still exist if all sentient beings vanished.
So what are the foundation for these moral facts?
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
So you admit there are moral facts, ie, moral rights and wrongs?
What are these moral facts in the absence of God? remember, for something to be a fact, then it must be existing INDEPENDENT of human opinion and preference.
They existed before any sentient beings existed, and will still exist if all sentient beings vanished.
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
Obviously it is not nonsense and is well documented. You just choose not to accept it. For example:
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannicasays of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Dr. Frances Collins, who is the director of the Human Genome Project, wrote an interesting article on why he is no longer an atheist because of this.
Picard says that she was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult.[25] She does not believe there is a separation of the "material body and immaterial spirit" but that there is "something else that we haven't discovered yet", and believes "that scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure".[25] She believes it likely that there is "still something more" to life, beyond what we have discovered, and sees DNAas too complex to have originated through "purely random processes".[25] To her, the complexity of DNA shows "the mark of intervention", and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are".[25] She sees her religious beliefs as playing a role in her work in affective computing,[26] and explains that when "Digging into the models of how the emotions work, I find I feel even greater awe and appreciation for the way we are made, and therefore for the Maker that has brought this about"
Dr Emil Silvestru read this: https://creation.mobi/following-darwin-an-interview-with-dr-emil-silvestru
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Doing just what you suggest has changed the mind of many scientists to believe in a Creator. The further down on a molecular level or the further in space, some have been so astounded that they say no way this just happened.
That's complete nonsense.
Obviously it is not nonsense and is well documented. You just choose not to accept it. For example:
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannicasays of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Dr. Frances Collins, who is the director of the Human Genome Project, wrote an interesting article on why he is no longer an atheist because of this.
Picard says that she was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult.[25] She does not believe there is a separation of the "material body and immaterial spirit" but that there is "something else that we haven't discovered yet", and believes "that scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure".[25] She believes it likely that there is "still something more" to life, beyond what we have discovered, and sees DNAas too complex to have originated through "purely random processes".[25] To her, the complexity of DNA shows "the mark of intervention", and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are".[25] She sees her religious beliefs as playing a role in her work in affective computing,[26] and explains that when "Digging into the models of how the emotions work, I find I feel even greater awe and appreciation for the way we are made, and therefore for the Maker that has brought this about"
Dr Emil Silvestru read this: https://creation.mobi/following-darwin-an-interview-with-dr-emil-silvestru
Hot Forum Topics
