Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Oct 2005 07:44:33 -0700
manutter51@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
> > > Richard Dawkins wrote:
> > > > In the above articles I've presented some evidence that shows that even when
> > > > one foolishly assumes that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human,
> > > > atheism, by virtue of its rejection and enmity against the TEN COMMANDMENTS
> > > > cannot elevate itself to such a noble height to author such decorous laws as
> > > > "Honor your father and your mother," "You shall not murder." "You shall not
> > > > steal," and etc. Since atheism is hotly opposed to the TEN COMMANDMENTS and
> > > > in order for the TEN COMMANDMENTS to have been authored by a human, it would
> > > > would have require a more sensible, noble and wise human than even the most
> > > > highly "learned" atheist.
> > >
> > > And yet, most atheists probably manage to honour their parents, to see
> > > that they are cared for in old age, and to refrain from murder and
> > > stealing. Imagine that.
> > >
> > > -- Kizhe
> >
> > Good point. You don't have to be a Christian to do what is right. You
> > don't even have to subscribe to any religion to do what is right.
> >
> > Whether Christians numerically do more good deeds than non-Christians
> > is not what I am talking about here. There is a more fundamental
> > issue.
> >
> > How does one know what is right and wrong without a standard?
>
> "Right" and "wrong" are defined by experience, and are ultimately
> social constructs for defining what helps or harms the balance between
> the interests of the individual and the interests of the group. Is
> "killing" right or wrong? If we did not kill plants and animals, we
> could not eat them, and we would die of starvation, or at least
> malnutrition. Killing each other is certainly wrong, because it is
> harmful to the best interests of the group, and also to the best
> interests of the individual, since we, as individuals, cannot enjoy the
> benefits of living in organized societies if we live in fear that other
> people are going to just randomly kill us. On the other hand, is it
> *always* wrong to kill? Can we imagine no circumstances under which
> the taking of a human life might be justified? (Example: an astronaut
> goes into space and becomes contaminated with a virus which, if allowed
> to return to earth, will kill every human being on the planet within 12
> months. If he tries to return anyway, should his spacecraft be blown
> up before it reaches the earth?)
That's a decent response. So, then standards of good and evil are
nothing more than social constructs, like a language or a tradition.
And, these standards are based on our views of the best ways to
safeguard and advance our society. OK.
>
> > And, if there is no Supreme Being to present such a standard, then
> > humans are the only ones to establish notions of good and evil on their
> > own.
>
> What if reality itself is the Supreme Being in this case?
I was thinking about a Supreme Being more in terms of a living entity
that created the universe.
f there is no Supreme Being in these terms but one in terms of reality
itself being the supreme being, then we would be, in effect, doing its
will by basing our notions of right and wrong on nature. Then again,
unless we wanted to redefine what sentience and having a will means,
nature has no will of its own. In this case, we'd be back to doing
what we ourselves think is right in our own thinking.
>
> > And, if this is the case, then there are now thousands, at a minimum,
> > of various ideas of good and evil from which to choose...if one wants
> > to even choose.
>
> Yet we find that reality constrains these choices down to a practical
> few that actually work effectively in real life to produce an optimal
> balance between the best interests of the individual and the best
> interests of the group. Too much emphasis on the best interests of any
> one individual, and you have a bully, a criminal, or a despot of some
> kind; too much emphasis on the best interests of society, and you have
> a regime without freedom or individuality or growth.
True. Then again, who says that having an optimal balance between the
best interests of the individual and the group is the "right" thing to
do? I know that there is an optimal balance between individual and
group interests for society to advance. Yet, is there an objective
moral reason, above and beyond what any one or group of humans says,
for society to advance at all?
>
> > Here's the evolutionary aspect: are notions or ideas of good and evil
> > imbedded in our DNA? Can they be?
>
> No, except to the extent that we have evolved sufficient intelligence
> to learn to profit from experience and learn to develop wise social
> interactions.
So, it is then "good" to develop wise social interactions.
>
> > If such knowledge of basic good and evil is not imbedded in our DNA,
> > then would not the existence of a person's conscience and inherent
> > identification of good and evil infer the possible existence of a soul
> > or spirit?
>
> Moot point, since "good" and "evil" are purely social constructs.
> Notice that when you've been "bad" you feel "shame," i.e. the fearful
> anticipation of negative social repercussions, in the form of explicit
> and possibly violent retribution from other members of society, and/or
> in the form of significant loss of social status, influence, and
> respect. Morality comes from how you perceive your relationship with
> the other members of your peer group, not from some divine dictum
> pronounced from on high. The mythological setting of moral precepts
> simply helps to codify them and impose a certain sense of weighty
> authority to them (especially in the case of principles that have been
> tacked on without a whole lot of practical social justification).
>
> > In order to be open and honest, I am a evangelical Christian who
> > believes that the earth is about 14 billion years old and that there
> > are genetic barriers or "islands" at the order or family level between
> > which no evolution is naturally possible.
>
> Your theory implies a couple of things: one, that the Creator was
> short-sighted, and for some peculiar reason deliberately crippled His
> design just to accommodate the oral traditions of creationist men, and
> two, that within the genetic code there are multiple complete sets of
> information: a master plan for the top level "baramin" from which
> individual orders, genera, and species are allowed to vary by no more
> than a pre-specified amount, plus the information for the species
> itself, to make sure that this species has not varied from the master
> baramin by that amount, plus the information for this particular
> individual member of the species. Now, even though mutations affect
> the actual structure of the genetic code itself, the original master
> information for the baraminic master plan has to remain unchanged, so
> that there will be an invariant standard against which to measure how
> far the evolving orders, genera, and species are straying from the
> master baramin, so that some kind of mechanism can kick in to force
> things back towards the standard baramin if they stray too far from the
> standard.
This would be the case unless 1) there are aspects of DNA that have not
yet been discovered (weak argument but still valid) or 2) God does
routinely interact with this environment to produce results which would
not occur naturally (no way of proving this).
>
> Do you know of any evidence for all that, in science or in the Bible?
I think that I went back and forth with others concerning this in times
past. It seems that there is no evidence showing that it cannot
happen, but also that there is a lack of observable evidence showing
that jumps across families (or some other arbitrary boundary) do indeed
happen.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/9b9a9ad0d9e5ba25/88805c36b4ebf450?lnk=st&q=spaza+islands&rnum=1#88805c36b4ebf450
In the Bible, yes. To say that the Biblical accounts conform to
evolutionary theory is to assume that the "kinds" according to Genesis
are not fixed. Thus, an amphibian which evolves into a bird slowly
over 50 million years is supported by Genesis as each offspring of
every slightly mutated reproduction is still the same "kind" as its
parent(s). I am not sure that we can make that assumption.
Honestly, I was just concerned here with ideas of "right" and "wrong".
> The Bible only says that things reproduce according to their kind,
> which is what the theory of evolution says, but neither science nor the
> Bible ever claims that kinds cannot change over long periods of time.
> Only the oral traditions of creationist men claim that there are any
> barriers or any natural forces preventing evolution at any taxonomic
> level; there is no evidence or Scriptural passage suggesting any such
> thing. Do you know of any reason to think such a thing should be true?
>
> m
I'd just be more comfortable with tracking one set of DNA as it mutates
across a family or order boundary before logically concluding that such
a thing is possible. That's all.
.
- References:
- Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Richard Dawkins
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Jim Spaza
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: manutter51@xxxxxxxxx
- Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: WND - Poll Lifted from CBS
- Next by Date: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
