Re: What's the Problem?


Jim Spaza wrote:
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <1155334640.198633.29500
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
declared...

John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:


Here's the problem. If we are part of the animal kingdom, where
"survival of the fittest" usually rules, then why decry human versions
of that survivial process?

If we are part fo the physical world, where "gravity" usually rules,
then why allow airplanes to fly? "Survival of the fittest" is an
observation about the way the world works, not a moral precept. Your
objection is mistaken.

Because flying itself doesn't entail a battle between personal rights
and the desire of others. Your reply is based on the erroneous notion
that human attempts to defy gravity have the same moral equivalence as
human versions of survival of the fittest.


Your response is just a non sequitur. There is no obvious reason
why "survival of the fittest" being a "battle between personal
rights" makes it a moral precept. As John pointed out, it is
merely an observation and it's one that you clearly don't
understand.

If not a struggle between the personally-defined rights of one entity
against the personally-defined rights of another, then what is your
version of morality?

See, here we are again, with humanists defining and redefining morality
as they see fit and as the argument progresses and changes. It is this
subjective, varying moral code which makes humanistic morality
incoherent and inconsistent, neither of which are attributes that you
want in a moral system.

And yet, as has been pointed out to you by numerous posters, the same
is true of Christian morality.







Why are we to treat others with respect and
establish human rights when there is nothing special about humanity
except for biological complexity?

There is quite a bit special about humanity, not the least of which is
that we are it. You, however, have no basis for respect and human rights
except that you think God (for whatever reason he has) commands you to.
If he demanded that you enslave your neighbors, you'd do that too. And
of course we have plenty of examples of Christian societies doing
exactly that.

Stop making this personal, as though you are overwhelmed by the
question, have no answer for it, and seek to place the attention on the
questioner.

Please answer.

I'm the one who originally asked the question and received no answer,
probably because the humanist thinks that humans are special but cannot
tell anyone why.

What kind of bogus replay is "...there is quite a bit special about
humanity, not the least of which is that we are it."?

What the heck does that mean?

It means that there are many things that make human different from
other animals, and one of the most important differences is that we
humans are the ones discussing the differences. Chimpanzees do not
discuss how they differ from gorillas.


I'll try again.

"Why are we to treat others with respect and establish human rights
when there is nothing special about humanity except for biological
complexity?"

Humans are not noticeably more biologically complex than most
vertebrates. We do have large, complex brains, and we use them in an
apparently unique way.

Regardless of how special or ordinary we are, we are social animals,
and need to organize our social groups in some way. Most of us want to
live in a social group that respects the rights of its members.




I guess you missed this sentence: "There is quite a bit special
about humanity, not the least of which is that we are it." Did
you want more reasons than that? How about we are sentient, we
are capable of empathy (except you, perhaps), we do better
through cooperation and we understand (to a large degree) the
consequences of our actions.

Irrelevant if you believe the atheistic biologists who say that all
mental processes, including self-awareness, is nothing more than
biological systems at work.

Why? Just because it is biological in nature doesn't mean it isn't
real.


Empathy? Please, again those same biologists will attribute empathy to
biological processes and point to emotions in the rest of the animal
kingdom to support their claim. One cannot claim a special status for
humanity for moral purposes but then claim similar status for purposes
of origin, meaning, and destiny. It is inconsistent and illogical.

Which is why the previous poster mentioned that one of the special
things about humans is that they are us.


Either humans are completely part of the animal kingdom having been
created through unintelligent, unpurposeful, natural processes with all
the moral implications that come with it or...there is truly something
special to humans which transcends the animal kingdom.

What are those moral implications? Just because your religion is so
fragile that it requires the constant intervention of the creator of
the universe just to make you feel warm and cosy, does not mean that
animals that have evolved self-awareness can not construct a meaningful
moral framework for their societies.


You cannot have it both ways.

Why can't we be special animals?



When John pointed out that you'd enslave your neighbors, if your
god demanded it, was he mistaken?

No. If the Supreme Being, a Being of infinite power and intelligence,
commanded me, I would. I would not simply because of my own logic,
feelings, and empathy (or lack thereof) which you humanists would if
your self-derived moral code somehow allowed it.

"I was only obeying orders" was not an excuse at Nurenburg, and those
who used it had a visible entity giving the orders. "God told me to do
it" is the excuse of people like the Yorkshire Ripper. I have much more
confidence in the morals of atheists, which are not based on simply
doing what they are told.






As a Christian, I can demand respect and rights for all humans because
I believe that there is something special about humanity. I believe
that we have a supernatural origin and are, to a point, special in the
eyes of God.

I don't see why that's a basis for human rights, and neither,
historically, did most Christians. You are making up excuses to connect
God to the morality we both share.

You and I do NOT share the same morality. One of the reasons is that
you think that you have the moral authority to create right and wrong
as you see fit. I have a more humble approach.


Actually your approach seems rather arrogant to me. You come in
here and start hurling insults about how we're all morally
inferior and then brag about your humility.

I NEVER said that you were morally inferior as though I, being a
Christian, live a moral life and you don't. In fact, some of you
atheists may lead better lives that I do. All I said was that the
SOURCE for your morality is your own subjective logic and emotions.

That's all right, then.


It sounds like you got all upset when I said that your moral code could
change with the weather, got emotional, and lost focus on my initial
assertion.

Fix the beam in your own eye.



And I really wish you'd open your mind just a tad and consider
the possibility that not everything we're telling you is a lie.

I do. That's why I am still here.

We tell you that our morals are just fine, then, rather than
giving an example of a flaw in our morality you just spew lies
about how our morals change with our moods. When we point out
that your moral authority is rather morally challenged, you
justify it with a "might makes right" type response. (Okay, maybe
it's more of a "creating makes right" response, but there's no
rational reason to accept that either.)

I did give you an example of a flaw in your morality: it can change as
you see fit because it is totally subjective.

Ditto.


And your morality CAN change with your mood. There is no basis for it
outside of your own mind. It's not something that you can objectively
reference and study.

Ditto.


It's weird. You want objective, testable evidence before you'll
believe something, such as God's existence, but then declare that your
"morals are just fine" without batting an eyelash, morals which are
100% subjective and 0% testable and repeatable. And you get mildly
perturbed when someone calls such subjective morality in question.

It's not weird at all. What's weird is that you appear to be comparing
a statement about the nature of the universe (God exists) with a value
judgement (subjective morality is bad). If you want to criticize our
consistency, you would have to change one of those statements (it would
be bad if God did not exist, or, subjective morality does not exist),
and reassess how we answer them.








A humanist cannot say such things. So, the rationale for basic human
rights is to establish some order and cooperation among humanity in
order to survive as a whole species?

No. Natural selection, or species selection, has little to do with morality.

Then never let me hear a humanist whine and complain about people
needing to cooperate with each other.


Huh? Why not? Are you suggesting that since a scientific
observation has no relation to morality that nothing does? Have
you really learned nothing in all the time you've been here?

I asked you if the purpose of basic human rights was to establish some
order and cooperation among humanity in order to survive. You said no.
I'm left wondering what your reason would be for having basic human
rights?

The rationale for basic human rights is that we want to live in a
social group that recognized human rights. Survival of the species is
not a major consideration.







I didn't say that I would be nervous around a bunch of evolutionary
biologists. I said that such scientists tend to have problems by
lumping us in with the animal kingdom but then demanding a higher level
of respect and rights separate and beyond that which we afford other
animals.

This is silly. We can be the same as other animals in some ways and
different in other ways. Even you admit we resemble animals in many ways.

The problem comes when humanist only look to our differences when
declaring that human rights must be established. And they only look to
similarities when discussion our origin.


Why is that a problem? Different attributes may be relevant to
different topics.

It is inconsistent and compartmentalizes the various aspects of human
existence for study. This can lead to errors in conclusions. The
whole human must be included in every analysis.

However, you have no problem compartmentalizing evolutionary
biologists.







Let's be consistent across all the aspects of human existence: origin,
meaning, morality, and destiny. If humans are separate enough from the
animal kingdom to garner special rights, as the humanists believe, then
let's not be hypocritical when it comes to origin, meaning, and
destiny.


That's not hypocrisy. Do you even know what that word means? It
means establishing a rule but not following that rule yourself.
An example would be saying "thou shalt not kill" and then
killing.

Yes, it is hypocritical to demand that Christians provide testable
evidence which does not summarily exclude anything from consideration
but then exclude much of human existence before declaring that human
beings evolved from a proto-bacteria.

No one is asking that Christians provide any evidence at all. However,
those who choose not to provide evidence for their claims, Christian or
not, can expect your claims to be ridiculed.






Trekkies? Now there is a dangerous lot. Many of them get picked on in
school and then buy assault weapons when they turn 21. Don't think
that they never consider a little payback.

Are you serious? When has a trekkie ever hurt anyone, that you know of?


I was just kidding. Goodness. I should have put a :-) after the last
post.

"Just kidding" seems to be your defense when you have no argument. So
we've established that your notion that Christians are nicer than other
people is specious, right?

No, just kidding means...just kidding. There is more to conversation
than pure logic.


We can only speculate as to whether this is a sincere response or
a flat out lie.

You're very cynical. You must associate with people who are not very
honest.

Creationists.





--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Because flying itself doesn't entail a battle between personal rights ... There is quite a bit special about humanity, not the least of which is ... Either humans are completely part of the animal kingdom having been ... about how our morals change with our moods. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Because flying itself doesn't entail a battle between personal rights ... There is quite a bit special about humanity, not the least of which is ... special to humans which transcends the animal kingdom. ... Your whole argument is that your morals are better than ours. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... governments for treating humans as animals. ... human rights rallies. ... I believe that there is something special about humanity. ... If you would actually be nervous when a bunch of evolutionary biologists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... governments for treating humans as animals. ... I believe that there is something special about humanity. ... from the rest of the animal kingdom to buttress one's personal morals ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... human rights rallies. ... It's not treating humans as animals that's wrong ... I believe that there is something special about humanity. ... If you would actually be nervous when a bunch of evolutionary biologists ...
    (talk.origins)