Discussion:
What Atheists Can't Answer
(too old to reply)
sdr
2007-07-14 17:08:23 UTC
Permalink
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post

" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "

Consider, Mr. Gerson:

If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.

But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."

Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).

But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.

The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.

Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
Immortalist
2007-07-14 17:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts?
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
niether confirm or deny such religious based issues.

A False Dilemma involves a situation in which two alternative
statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality
there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.
The fallacy relies on a misuse of the "or" operator. The dilemma need
not be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in
which case it is known as a trifurcation. There may be even more
choices involved, in which case the fallacy may arise simply by
accidental omission - possibly through a form of wishful thinking -
rather than by deliberate deception. Two extreme points on some
spectrum of possibilities can give the impression that the options are
mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


...by appealing to the core principles of neurobiology, evolutionary
theory, and cognitive science, practitioners of a new human science
can reach a deeper understanding of why we feel certain courses of
action to be intrinsically correct. They can help us to understand why
we have moral feelings. For now, though, the scientists can offer no
guidance on whether we are really correct in making certain decisions,
because no way is known to define what is correct without total
reference to the moral feelings under scrutiny. Perhaps this is the
ultimate burden of the free will bequeathed to us by our genes: in the
final analysis, even when we know what we are likely to do and why,
each of us must still choose.

The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very
great-in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws
and institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in
virtual blind ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature. By
relying on moral intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of
right and wrong, people remain enslaved by their genes and culture.
Their minds develop along the channels set by the hereditary
epigenetic rules, and while they exercise free will in moment-by-
moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and its value to the
individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the physical
basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning will
people have the power to control their own lives. They will then be in
a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social
regulation needed to maintain the precepts.

Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/

...innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow.

Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary
perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine
the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences
and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory
of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In
a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick
begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm
proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if
anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are
somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different
prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as
close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's
rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal
state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud,
and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls
rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in
those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment
with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their
personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though
consulting a hidden oracle.

That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most
probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.

Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual
apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in
the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this
ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among
the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our
destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our
biological properties to precise steering based on biological
knowledge.

Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated
arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the
philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature
as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the
natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can
conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology
cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic
history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own
physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be
left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be
achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical
knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum
choices among the competing criteria of progress.

On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
Post by sdr
...Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
k***@houston.rr.com
2007-07-20 07:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts?
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
--
Overheard:"If I am a friend of the family then I at least must be from
Texas. You shouldn't worry your pretty little head about politics, baby, if
it is something that you're curious about, just ask an adult and we'll keep
you informed."
Buzzard
2007-07-22 00:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@houston.rr.com
Post by Immortalist
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
k***@houston.rr.com
2007-07-22 20:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:54 -0400
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-019-ct11.citizens.swva.net
Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC
news.ThunderNews.com!dartmaster!s02-b11.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!130.81.64.211.MISMATCH!cycny01.gnilink.net!news-out.usenet.com!sp6iad.superfeed.net!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.infoave.net!not-for-mail
alt.angst,alt.bible,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.military
X-Trace: news04.infoave.net 1185065037 8493 66.37.75.19 (22 Jul 2007
00:43:57 GMT)
Followup-To: alt.angst
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Xref: news.ThunderNews.com alt.angst:71055 alt.bible:798862
alt.philosophy:369188 alt.philosophy.objectivism:43857 alt.military:297928
Post by k***@houston.rr.com
Post by Immortalist
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
--
Overheard:"If I am a friend of the family then I at least must be from
Texas. You shouldn't worry your pretty little head about politics, baby, if
it is something that you're curious about, just ask an adult and we'll keep
you informed."
-Phil Clemence
2007-07-22 23:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@houston.rr.com
Post by Buzzard
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
Who says it is the most opposed to a belief in god?
If there is no god, there is no need for a safe bet.
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-25 02:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@houston.rr.com
Subject: Re: What Atheists Can't Answer
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:54 -0400
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-019-ct11.citizens.swva.net
Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC
news.ThunderNews.com!dartmaster!s02-b11.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!ne wshosting.com!130.81.64.211.MISMATCH!cycny01.gnilink.net!news-out.usenet.co m!sp6iad.superfeed.net!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.infoave.net!not-for-m ail
alt.angst,alt.bible,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.military
X-Trace: news04.infoave.net 1185065037 8493 66.37.75.19 (22 Jul 2007
00:43:57 GMT)
Followup-To: alt.angst
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Xref: news.ThunderNews.com alt.angst:71055 alt.bible:798862
alt.philosophy:369188 alt.philosophy.objectivism:43857 alt.military:297928
Post by k***@houston.rr.com
Post by Immortalist
The choice between theism and atheist is a false dicotomy since there
are other non-religious thinking based alternatives. Attempt that
It depends on how you choose to define your terms. If I define atheism as
being a simple rebellion against God, that doesn't mean I'm denying the
existance of other non-religious thinking based alternatives.
Indeed. I thought "atheistic" and "non-religious" were synonyms,
'atheist' being (latin?) for 'no god'
Some people find it surprizing that I believe in God (for purely
philosophical reasons). The idea most opposed to a belief in God is the
'Safe Bet' principle which says that you can't lose by having a belief in
God. It's a pathological concept.
Yes, you can, as there are infinitely many Gods where not believan in
the true God will get you in one of infinite Hells.
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-25 02:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Pastor Dave
2007-07-14 18:37:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-14 19:57:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:37:11 -0400
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do. However, if you
choose to be evolutionarily successful then you should do what works in
the long run. If you depend on trees, then don't cut them down faster
than you plant new ones or you'll get in trouble. If you depend on corn
then don't cut its genetic diversity to the point a disease seriously
threatens it. If you depend on your biome, be very very cautious about
introducing new species that might disrupt it. People don't survive as
individuals, in the long run we survive as populations. Be good to your
population because in 5 generations your descendents might be mixed with
any part of it.

In some circumstances the individuals who watch out for the long run
will be successful in the short run, and those behaviors will be
selected. In other circumstances it doesn't work that way and whole
species might tend toward extinction -- because the species didn't
manage to select for what would help it survive.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
No, if nothing is wrong then putting people in prison for any reason or
for none is not wrong either.

So for example, I've seen the claim that ants carefully monitor each
other's behavior. When an ant behaves erraticly the other ants put it
out of the nest. Erratic behavior could be a sign of disease or
poisoning, and the nest does better when that sort of thing doesn't
spread. They probably don't think about it in moral terms at all. They
just follow their programming, which is the programming that in the past
has resulted in the most successful ant nests.

Most morality can be explained this way, though the fact that this sort
of explanation is successful doesn't mean it's true. In the past we have
found ways that let people survive together better than what they did
before, and those ways have spread. So for example, in ancient times all
around the mediterranean people had sex in church. Most religions did
that. There would be priestesses for men who for one reason or another
weren't having sex with their wives or other people's wives etc in
church. But some of the sects in egypt didn't do that, and the custom of
going to church and not having sex there spread to the point that now
it's almost universal. But 2700 years ago the other way was almost
universal -- it was probably better than whatever they'd been doing
before.

So we improve our practices slowly, erraticly, as better practices
gradually or catastrophicly prove themselves. Sometimes it's three steps
forward and two steps back. Sometimes we get great ideas that just don't
pan out. Consider for example the Golden Rule. By rational standards
this is plain good behavior. Since humans tend to treat others as they
have been treated, if you treat others the way you want to be treated
there's a reasonable chance they'll return the favor. Whether it's what
they want or not. If you want people to be angry and suspicious of you,
be angry and suspicious of them all the time. Even if they don't like to
be that way, most of them will. It works.

And yet, while this rule gets expressed by many religions -- judaism,
christianity, islam, buddhism, taoism, confucianism, etc -- very few
people practice it. Anyone can see that it ought to work, that it's
rational. Anyone can see that it's a good way to behave. After 2000
years christians mostly don't do it. Buddhists mostly don't do it.
Cunfucians mostly don't do it. Etc. A great idea that survives well --
people like to repeat it and like to hear about it -- but the idea
mostly doesn't translate into behavior. Does it actually not get people
what they want after all? Do they not actually want what they say they
do? Whatever the case, it doesn't work out the way many religions say it
ought to.

It's hard to second-guess evolution. Like it's hard to second-guess God
but less profound. I think it might be better to consider morality and
evolution as being in two separate domains, so that they don't really
interact except by analogy.

Here is one thought though. If you take a moral stand, and the result of
your morality is that you die childless or your children are killed,
that the people who follow your morality are all killed, that your
teachings are wiped off the face of the earth, does that imply that
there's something somehow wrong with your morality?

My answer tends to be no. Just because your ideas lead to death for all
who believe them does not make the ideas wrong or less than the highest
morality. Christians particularly might agree with me -- what difference
does it matter about results in this world, when your behavior has such
important effects in the next world?

This situation has come up for christians. The christians we now call
cathars believed in a form of christianity that apparently was much
closer to the teachings of Jesus and the early church than the catholic
church of that time or any church of later times. I say apparently
because they were all killed and only fragments of their teachings
remain. Killed by worse christians, who were happy to murder gentle
christians when that murder gave them productive farms.

I would like to believe that good moral systems tend to result in
improved survival for the groups that practice them. That our morals
evolve toward what God would want. But it clearly doesn't always happen,
and possibly it might not ever happen. Cathars practiced poverty, but
that didn't protect them enough. Was it five steps forward and the
destruction was only four steps back? I hope.
Pastor Dave
2007-07-14 20:26:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:57:49 -0400, Jonah Thomas
Post by Jonah Thomas
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:37:11 -0400
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong. In fact, since
you believe that man is an animal, that is all
man needs to follow and the rules of the
animal kingdom have no sense of "what
I worked and paid for, is mine". Rather,
watch some lions steal their food from
other animals, going for the easy grab, rather
than hunting down and catching and killing
their own food. So yours is not yours, but
whomever can take it from you, it is theirs
and you shouldn't object, but rather, should
give way and go off to find other food and
there shouldn't even be a legal system, nor
any crime called "stealing".
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
No, if nothing is wrong then putting people in prison
for any reason or for none is not wrong either.
In that sense, just go and kill anyone you want,
or everyone, to take what is available.

There are no morals under evolution and therefore,
no need for prisons, since nothing is a crime, since
"crime" is a term that springs out of morals ideas
of what is right and what is wrong and prisons
are specifically built to hold criminals.

The reality is, that when the prison is constructed
and used, that is the time at which it is admitted
that evolution is being contradicted by those who
claim to believe in it, regardless if they say the
words or not. Their actions state it loud and clear!
Post by Jonah Thomas
Most morality can be explained this way
No amount of double talk will interest me.
The reality is, that your ideas of morality
are irrelevant, if evolution is true and the
very word "morals" existing is a contradiction
to evolution and no attempt to explain morals
away as some concept of learning from some
experiences will suffice and we both know that,
since we both know that's not the definition of
morality.

Face it, evolution cannot explain morality
and we both know what that means.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-15 00:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?

Morals can evolve without any right and wrong. For social animals
they're pretty much guaranteed to. It doesn't matter whether they do it
with instinct or something else, so long as the differences among
different systems result in one of them spreading due to natural
selection.
Post by Pastor Dave
In fact, since
you believe that man is an animal, that is all
man needs to follow and the rules of the
animal kingdom have no sense of "what
I worked and paid for, is mine". Rather,
watch some lions steal their food from
other animals, going for the easy grab, rather
than hunting down and catching and killing
their own food. So yours is not yours, but
whomever can take it from you, it is theirs
and you shouldn't object, but rather, should
give way and go off to find other food and
there shouldn't even be a legal system, nor
any crime called "stealing".
?? What kind of illusions do you have about our legal system? If you
have land and you need a zoning variance, do you think that variance is
yours? Unless you have the right connections, that variance is likely
not to go through until after you sell the land cheap to somebody with
the right connections.

People like to think they own land free and clear, but in this country
they don't. One of my old teachers bought a summer home out in the
mountains. Then he found out that the tax assessment was 23% of what he
paid for it, every year. He appealed. He went to a meeting, and the
committee that judged the assessment showed up in their work boots and
bib overalls. "This was assessed as central head and air, but see, all
it has is this oil stove." "Hmm. Looks like central heat to me." To them
he looked like a rich city man but he couldn't pay that way. He sold the
house to the next sucker for almost as much as he paid for it, and only
lost about 25% on the deal total.

OK, look at poor Libby who was about to go to jail until Bush commuted
his sentence. Poor guy. But if you get accused of a crime and you can't
make bail, you might be in jail for a year waiting for your trial. And
depending, the DA might offer you a plea bargain. Say you're guilty and
they'll put you in jail for a year, no more than you'd spend waiting for
the trial that might give you more.

Our legal system *can* be used to steal your food, your home, your
personal liberty. And if that happens then you gain nothing by
objecting. Perhaps there shouldn't be a legal system like this, but you
seem to think that the fact it exists means something about morality. I
don't think so.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
No, if nothing is wrong then putting people in prison
for any reason or for none is not wrong either.
In that sense, just go and kill anyone you want,
or everyone, to take what is available.
Unless they're organised in a big conspiracy to stop you. Then you
either hope they let you join them, or you run away, or you let them
play a rousing game of Humans and Monsters with you. It isn't about
right and wrong, it's about what you can get away with. Just because you
can't get away with everything you might want to, doesn't imply that
your limitations have anything much to do with right and wrong.
Post by Pastor Dave
There are no morals under evolution and therefore,
no need for prisons, since nothing is a crime, since
"crime" is a term that springs out of morals ideas
of what is right and what is wrong and prisons
are specifically built to hold criminals.
You have some sort of illusion that we start out with moral ideals, and
we get right and wrong from them, and we develop civilization out of
those anti-evolutionary ideals.

However, it works just as well to suppose that we start out with animals
that don't live in herds, and they develop habits of behavior that do
let them live in herds. And all these ideas about right and wrong have
evolved out of the survival advantage we get from living in large groups
and making it work. If your moral ideals have evolved to meet survival
needs -- if in a different environment very different moral ideals would
evolve -- what does that say about "no morals under evolution"? You have
some sort of idea that morals are special and not subject to evolution.
You could be right. But behaviors identical to those you consider moral
could indeed evolve without any outside intervention and without any
grand meaning. Just because of their effect on survival, and nothing
more.

Evolution can explain everything we see just as well as anti-evolution
can. All except some things inside your head that are hard to
demonstrate are actually there.
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that when the prison is constructed
and used, that is the time at which it is admitted
that evolution is being contradicted by those who
claim to believe in it, regardless if they say the
words or not. Their actions state it loud and clear!
That is completely false. If a gang of criminals can build cages and put
people into them, so can a legitimate government. In fact, the
difference between the gang of criminals and the legitimate government
is only that the citizens as a whole give their consent to the
government, while they only acquiesce to the criminal gang out of fear.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Most morality can be explained this way
No amount of double talk will interest me.
You seem to be quite interested in your double talk.
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that your ideas of morality
are irrelevant, if evolution is true and the
very word "morals" existing is a contradiction
to evolution and no attempt to explain morals
away as some concept of learning from some
experiences will suffice and we both know that,
since we both know that's not the definition of
morality.
You haven't demonstrated that there is any morality beyond my
explanation.
Post by Pastor Dave
Face it, evolution cannot explain morality
and we both know what that means.
Evolution doesn't need to explain anything. It just preferentially lets
some things survive and preferentially makes other things die. It owes
no explanation to the living or the dead. I can explain the "moral"
behaviors I see using my concept of evolution. You cannot explain
"moral" behaviors using your concept of God, because you don't
understand God. You can only urge that people accept whatever God
chooses to do on the assumption that if it's Him doing it, things will
work out for the best.

In both cases we're making JustSo stories. But I contend my JustSo
stories are much better than yours.
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 01:02:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:27:43 -0400, Jonah Thomas
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
Morals can evolve without any right and wrong.
Actually, no, they can't. Morals are "rights and wrongs".

Morals - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles
or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right
and wrong.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
In fact, since
you believe that man is an animal, that is all
man needs to follow and the rules of the
animal kingdom have no sense of "what
I worked and paid for, is mine". Rather,
watch some lions steal their food from
other animals, going for the easy grab, rather
than hunting down and catching and killing
their own food. So yours is not yours, but
whomever can take it from you, it is theirs
and you shouldn't object, but rather, should
give way and go off to find other food and
there shouldn't even be a legal system, nor
any crime called "stealing".
?? What kind of illusions do you have about our legal system?
I have no illusions.
Post by Jonah Thomas
If you have land and you need a zoning variance
No, you don't, since under evolution,
land belongs to whomever can take it.
Just watch the animal kingdom and
don't forget that you believe we are
animals.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
No, if nothing is wrong then putting people in prison
for any reason or for none is not wrong either.
In that sense, just go and kill anyone you want,
or everyone, to take what is available.
Unless they're organised in a big conspiracy to stop you.
Unless? That would involve a moral judgment
that said conspiracy is wrong and that would
involve a moral judgment. Under evolution
of animals, there is no such thing as morals
and nothing is wrong with a conspiracy,
nor with me killing all of them.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
There are no morals under evolution and therefore,
no need for prisons, since nothing is a crime, since
"crime" is a term that springs out of morals ideas
of what is right and what is wrong and prisons
are specifically built to hold criminals.
You have some sort of illusion
I have no illusions.
Post by Jonah Thomas
that we start out with moral ideals
It is your claim that we don't. But I don't really
care about that. You keep trying to change the
direction of the discussion, which is why you
keep finding your long winded explanations
snipped.

The view of a crime comes from morality.
Under evolution, morality cannot exist
and therefore, does not apply.
Post by Jonah Thomas
and we get right and wrong from them,
and we develop civilization out of
those anti-evolutionary ideals.
And yet, evolutionists claim that "everyone
knows that we evolved". So I guess that's
not true, huh?
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that when the prison is constructed
and used, that is the time at which it is admitted
that evolution is being contradicted by those who
claim to believe in it, regardless if they say the
words or not. Their actions state it loud and clear!
That is completely false.
No, it is completely true.
Post by Jonah Thomas
If a gang of criminals can build cages and put
people into them, so can a legitimate government.
Not without admitting that morals exist and that
there is a right and wrong, which is the opposite
of evolution.

Furthermore, that's a straw man. You wish to
pretend that prisons were built, because gangs
of criminals were putting people into cages.
That's a ridiculous claim!

Furthermore, if evolution is true, then no morality
judgments can be made and it is those who build
the prisons who are denying evolution by doing so.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that your ideas of morality
are irrelevant, if evolution is true and the
very word "morals" existing is a contradiction
to evolution and no attempt to explain morals
away as some concept of learning from some
experiences will suffice and we both know that,
since we both know that's not the definition of
morality.
You haven't demonstrated that there is any
morality beyond my explanation.
I don't need to worry about explanations that
try to redefine what morality is and that try
to make it into something else, because you
can't explain morality as what it is.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-15 02:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Actually, no, they can't. Morals are "rights and wrongs".
But right and wrong (morals) cant be determined unless there is a
standard to measure them against. If the standard you choose cant be
poked with a stick, i.e. if the standard you choose to determine right
from wrong cant be poked with a stick, then its been INVENTED inside
your head.

My standard is my own life, what's yours Robert?


Michael Gordge
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 13:48:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:00:58 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
Actually, no, they can't. Morals are "rights and wrongs".
But right and wrong (morals) cant be determined unless there is a
standard to measure them against. If the standard you choose cant be
poked with a stick, i.e. if the standard you choose to determine right
from wrong cant be poked with a stick, then its been INVENTED inside
your head.
You can try to dodge the point if you wish.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-16 06:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
You can try to dodge the point if you wish.
Are you blind or just closed minded and bloody mystically ignorant?

I am saying, that you can not determine a good idea or action from a
bad idea or action UNLESS you have something (a standard) to measure
that idea or action against.

Are you with me so far?

I am saying, that the standard I use to determine a good or bad idea
or action is, my own life.

Sheeesh what is so hard to understand so far?

In other words, ***I*** give my life its value and its meaning to ME
and I then search and experiment for ideas and actions, which to be
good, must not contradict those values that I have chosen to give MY
life its MEANING TO ME.

Logically then, the bad ideas and action are those which obviously
contradict the values which ****I**** have chosen to give MY life its
MEANING TO ME.

Explain HOW that is avoiding the subject on HOW to go about chossing
the moral from the immoral?

Michael Gordge
Sketch System
2007-07-23 23:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
If you have land and you need a zoning variance
No, you don't, since under evolution,
land belongs to whomever can take it.
Just watch the animal kingdom and
don't forget that you believe we are
animals.
So now you think the Theory of Evolution makes statements about zoning
laws and property rights?
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
In that sense, just go and kill anyone you want,
or everyone, to take what is available.
Unless they're organised in a big conspiracy to stop you.
Unless? That would involve a moral judgment
that said conspiracy is wrong and that would
involve a moral judgment. Under evolution
of animals, there is no such thing as morals
and nothing is wrong with a conspiracy,
nor with me killing all of them.
Now the Theory of Evolution makes claims about conspiracies!?
Post by Pastor Dave
I have no illusions.
But you evidently suffer from delusions about what the TOE claims.
Post by Pastor Dave
The view of a crime comes from morality.
Under evolution, morality cannot exist
and therefore, does not apply.
This statement is just plain false. Evolution exists and morality
exists.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that when the prison is constructed
and used, that is the time at which it is admitted
that evolution is being contradicted by those who
claim to believe in it, regardless if they say the
words or not. Their actions state it loud and clear!
That is completely false.
No, it is completely true.
In your head it may be true, but it is actually false. Criminal
activity and the resulting punishment in a modern society in no way
contradicts Evolution.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
If a gang of criminals can build cages and put
people into them, so can a legitimate government.
Not without admitting that morals exist and that
there is a right and wrong, which is the opposite
of evolution.
Your repetition of this false assertion does not make it true. Actual
discovery does not work the same way religion does.
Post by Pastor Dave
Furthermore, that's a straw man. You wish to
pretend that prisons were built, because gangs
of criminals were putting people into cages.
That's a ridiculous claim!
I'm starting to doubt your literacy.
Post by Pastor Dave
Furthermore, if evolution is true, then no morality
judgments can be made and it is those who build
the prisons who are denying evolution by doing so.
Again, repetition does not equal truth. Evolution and minority exist
simultaneously.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
You haven't demonstrated that there is any
morality beyond my explanation.
I don't need to worry about explanations that
try to redefine what morality is and that try
to make it into something else, because you
can't explain morality as what it is.
I'm afraid you are required to back up your assertions just like
everyone else in this group, if you want to be taken seriously.
However, if you prefer to continue with insane gibberish, that is your
right.
Craig Franck
2007-07-15 22:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.

I tried to reason with him once that if some people are simply
determined to commit crimes with no input from free will, it
follows that other people may simply be determined to throw
them in jail.

He is armor plated against such logic.
--
Craig Franck
***@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
much better than yours.
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-16 00:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Franck
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.
Thank you for the good will. I have of course noticed that he has been
utterly unwilling to do so, so far. I'd rather give him the benefit of
the doubt and suppose that he might be capable of doing it if he wanted
to.

Here's a story I've told before someplaces. When I was a college
freshman I had the chance to participate in a psychological experiment,
a military simulation. We had a sand table and some manuals. A one-way
mirror let the guys in the control room watch us. We wrote orders and
put them through a slot beneath the mirror, and typewritten responses
came back. I was teamed up with another guy and we ran a guerrilla
movement against a puppet government and the foreign troops supporting
it. We started out getting intelligence info about the troop levels in
the regional capital, but just as the information started coming in an
enemy patrol found our headquarters and a lower-level commander chased
them to the regional capital and beyond, and we'd won that much. Then
enemy ranger units started raiding us from the swamps. We managed that,
and we were looking for ways to expand when we saw that they were
massing for a giant attack on the regional capital, one we couldn't hold
against. We managed a retreat, and I came up with the idea of leaving
behind lots of drugs and alcohol so the foreign troops would make
atrocities to hurt them diplomatically. The UN observers were appalled.
At each point I could see the enemy's strategy. I sent them a diplomatic
offer -- free burial and grave maintenance for their dead soldiers
(which after the war would provide us with a modest tourist income). We
heard a big shout of laughter from the other room and we got a
typewritten response -- the enemy negotiators laughed at our proposal.
As things progressed we filled out questionnaires that asked what we
were doing, how it was working, how we felt, etc. My partner wanted to
handle the military side of it and I handled everything else. His
military attempts all failed miserably but my diplomatic, economic,
political, etc approaches worked very very well. I gradually camke to
feel that what I was doing made a big difference.

After it was over we discussed the game with the other team. "Wow, that
was great! When we smuggled the A-bomb off the enemy aircraft carrier,
it just doesn't get better than that!" They didn't play the enemy, they
were playing the guerrillas just like us. But every military plan they
tried, worked.

Later we got to look over the experiment. The course of the war was
entirely decided ahead of time. The things that showed the course of the
war had been typed out before we started. Little messages like the one
about "The enemy negotiators laughed at your proposal" were ad-libbed,
that time the other guys were laughing in victory when they got the
nuke.

It *seemed* like we were fighting somebody who responded closely to our
moves. But it was all an illuson. When you're trying to make sense out
of the other guy's strategy, it will usually make sense. Only when he
does things that simply make no sense at all, things that clearly hurt
him for no gain at all, can it look like he isn't home. Or when he does
nothing at all.

I tend to think that Pastor Dave isn't just a bot. He has at least a
person to help out with the hard parts, to make the responses seem
somewhat responsive. I could be wrong. But then, so what if he is?

If you can write in ways that clarify your own thinking, or that
interest someone else, then it doesn't matter whether you're responding
to a humank being who chooses to respond badly or a bot that just
doesn't know any better. You win what there is to win, either way.
Pastor Dave
2007-07-16 00:34:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:08:20 -0400, Jonah Thomas
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Craig Franck
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.
Thank you for the good will. I have of course noticed that he has been
utterly unwilling to do so, so far. I'd rather give him the benefit of
the doubt and suppose that he might be capable of doing it if he wanted
to.
I tend to think that Pastor Dave isn't just a bot. He has at least a
person to help out with the hard parts, to make the responses seem
somewhat responsive. I could be wrong. But then, so what if he is?
In other words, I don't play your game and so,
why not invent stories about me.

The evolutionists version of "intelligent discussion":

Ev: Evolution is a fact. I win.

I am not interested in discussing evolution with you.
It is your religion and you can have at it.

Now run along and tell everyone how dumb Christians
are. In the mean time, I'll know that you haven't a clue
what you're talking about.

Goodbye now.
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-16 03:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Ev: Evolution is a fact. I win.
You and I both agree that evolution is a fact. You have quibbles about
macroevolution, but that's a detail.

What's interesting is not that evolution exists, but what it means that
evolution exists.

Does evolution mean there is no god? Certainly not. Evolution could even
be the method that god is using to create the world.

Does evolution mean there is no morality? Certainly not. Since there
could be a god, that god could provide a morality even while evolution
is acting.

Suppose there is evolution and no god, what would that mean? That's a
more interesting question and you and I have diagreed about some of the
implications. We haven't gotten to the level of detail that would show
what you actually mean, unfortunately. I'd be interested in that. I have
the idea -- not from what you've said but from logical extrapolation
that might be wrong -- that you believe there's an objective morality,
the morality that God provides, and that people can know what the
objective morality is, and that without a god to provide the real
objective morality there's no morality at all. And since you believe
there is a real objective morality then you believe that God is
providing that morality. And for people who believe as you do, this
would be evidence for God.

Is that right, or did I get it wrong?
Post by Pastor Dave
I am not interested in discussing evolution with you.
It is your religion and you can have at it.
Not a religion for me. Evolution can get some interesting results.
Genetic algorithms can solve some computing problems. It's a logic thing
that can have practical implications. It doesn't fulfill many of the
functions of religion. Evolutionary theory can *explain* how groups hold
together, but it doesn't do much to help them hold together. Religions
do that. Evolutionary theory can explain how moral systems help people
survive, but telling people about evolutionary theory won't actually get
them to act morally. Religions tend not to do that either, but they
probably help more than lectures about evolution. Evolution itself can
create groups that hold together and it can create moral systems that
work, but good luck with changing the world in ways that select for what
you want! People who try that might very well find themselves modifying
or creating religions.

I don't think you do good by trying to oppose science and religion.
People who don't learn science because you tell them not to, are less
value to society than people with fewer limitations. And you weaken your
religion by pretending it opposes science. They're different domains.
Science is about finding simple ways to organise the reproducible parts
of our experience. There's no claim that it's True, it just works.
There's no reason for religion to intrude in that domain, and science
doesn't intrude in any religious domain -- except some silly atheists
claim it does.
Post by Pastor Dave
Now run along and tell everyone how dumb Christians are.
I'm a christian. I don't say christians are dumb, apart from the ways
that human beings are dumb. I'm keeping an open mind about how dumb you
are. I haven't seen you do anything smart yet, but that's only negative
evidence.
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-25 02:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonah Thomas
I don't think you do good by trying to oppose science and religion.
People who don't learn science because you tell them not to, are less
value to society than people with fewer limitations. And you weaken your
religion by pretending it opposes science. They're different domains.
Science is about finding simple ways to organise the reproducible parts
of our experience. There's no claim that it's True, it just works.
There's no reason for religion to intrude in that domain, and science
doesn't intrude in any religious domain -- except some silly atheists
claim it does.
And when religions' texts say something about the scientific world?
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Now run along and tell everyone how dumb Christians are.
I'm a christian. I don't say christians are dumb, apart from the ways
With that name, of course you are-yet.

-Aut
Michael Gordge
2007-07-16 07:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Franck
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.
I tried to reason with him once that if some people are simply
determined to commit crimes with no input from free will, it
follows that other people may simply be determined to throw
them in jail.
He is armor plated against such logic.
--
Craig Franck
Cortland, NY
much better than yours.
You'd be pushing shit up hill with a skinny rake to spot any
difference at all in the diatribe going on between Jona and Pastor,
Craig.


Michael Gordge
Craig Franck
2007-07-16 21:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Craig Franck
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.
I tried to reason with him once that if some people are simply
determined to commit crimes with no input from free will, it
follows that other people may simply be determined to throw
them in jail.
He is armor plated against such logic.
You'd be pushing shit up hill with a skinny rake to spot any
difference at all in the diatribe going on between Jona and Pastor,
Craig.
All of Jonah's posts I've read appear to be the rational
product of an intelligent and thoughtful person.
--
Craig Franck
***@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Michael Gordge
2007-07-16 22:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Franck
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Craig Franck
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong.
?? You didn't read what I wrote, did you?
Just to warn you, It's been my experience that Pastor Dave is
incapable of participating in an intelligent discussion.
I tried to reason with him once that if some people are simply
determined to commit crimes with no input from free will, it
follows that other people may simply be determined to throw
them in jail.
He is armor plated against such logic.
You'd be pushing shit up hill with a skinny rake to spot any
difference at all in the diatribe going on between Jona and Pastor,
Craig.
All of Jonah's posts I've read appear to be the rational
product of an intelligent and thoughtful person.
--
Craig Franck
Cortland, NY- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You may consider it the product of an intelligent rational thoughtful
person who claims to be a mystic, I dont. There is nothing rational or
intelligent in accepting the idea of a creator of everything,
therefore out of nothing.


Michael Gordge
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-17 03:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
You may consider it the product of an intelligent rational thoughtful
person who claims to be a mystic, I dont. There is nothing rational or
intelligent in accepting the idea of a creator of everything,
therefore out of nothing.
Before we discuss a "creator of everything" we need to think about what
it means.

I strongly recommend to you the operationalism championed by PW
Bridgman. Bridgman said that a useful way to define something --
anything -- is to look at what you do to measure it. If you define
things in terms of how you interact with them, you're likely to see
things about them that you might miss otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

How do you interact with a "creator of everything"? What do you do to
tell the difference between a "creator of everything" and "creator of
some things"? Until we can answer this question, we're likely not to
know what we're talking about. And until we agree just what it is we're
talking about, it might not make sense to argue about whether it exists.

So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents and
sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would answer my
prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside my head.

Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so mean.
And I got the answer that I should pray for my own self, that I needed
to forgive her myself. Spiteful prayers weren't what God was looking
for.

When I prayed to God I got answers that weren't what I wanted, but that
were *righter* than anything I would have thought of myself. God told me
things I didn't particularly want to know, but that I needed to know.
Things a better person than me would want to learn.

After awhile I started thinking that I shouldn't believe in God. After
all, there was no scientific reason to. Probably the answers I got when
I prayed were just things my own subconscious mind made up for me. Why
should I pay attention to my own subconscious mind, which was in no way
God? But whenever I got myself into a bind where I didn't know what to
do and I prayed to God, I got answers I needed, that I didn't come up
with myself. After awhile I didn't care whether it was really the God
that the sunday school teachers talked about. What was important for me
was doing the right thing. Was it going to get me immortal life in
heaven? Not my problem. My problem was to become somebody I'd like and
respect better than who I already was. To solve my own problems.

When I think about God, the God I think of is the one who answers my
prayers. That's my experience. I don't have any other experience of God.
God answers my prayers, and sometimes I don't like the answers but I see
that they're right.

I asked God whether he made the world in 7 days, and he told me that had
nothing to do with me. And he was right. Arguing about evolution has
nothing to do with my God. It has nothing to do with me becoming the
person God can help me to be.

People talk like belief is supposed to be an issue. You can make
yourself believe in a god with a long white beard who sits on a cloud.
Or you can make yourself believe in a god who created the universe, who
will someday crack it open like an egg and take out the bits he wants to
keep. I don't know about any of that. I don't know what you'd do to find
them if they're there, and I don't know how you're recognise them if you
found them. I don't have to believe in my god -- I pray to him and he
answers me. But I'm not sure how much I can talk about god to other
people. If they pray and he doesn't answer, what do I tell them to do so
he will answer them? If I can't tell them how to do it so it works, then
it's just my experience.

Tell somebody what an electron is and anybody can get it. You tie thread
around a couple of styrofoam balls, you wrap aluminum foil around them
and hang them so they can swing free. Rub a balloon on your hair or cat
fur or something and touch one of the balls. They spring apart, they
repel each other. Electrons repel each other, and they spread out across
metal, and so they spread across both balls and then the balls repel
each other. There's a set of experiments that anybody can do that show
how electrons behave, and those experiments are what define an electron.
Anybody can do them. But if I tell you what god is like for me and you
can't do it yourself, what good is that for you?

If god speaks to you also, we can discuss it. We are different people
with different needs and god might tell us different things. Maybe we
might hear such different things that we doubt it's even the same god
talking to us both. It might be interesting to compare notes, provided
that doesn't get too much in our way. But what of the man who prays and
gets no answer at all? Does he deserve our pity? No, he may have an
important place in the world, carrying that burden. If he argues that
there is no god at all should we try to shout him down? He has no
contact with god and *also* he loses arguments about it? How is that
right? Be kind.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-18 05:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonah Thomas
Before we discuss a "creator of everything" we need to think about what
it means.
I dont know who you mean by *we*, because I already did ***think***
about it.

To **think** means, to apply non-contradictory identification to the
matter / evidence before you, because if you dont do that, then you
are only guessing or whimming, or wishing or dreaming or hoping
something to be true.

To apply **thinking** to "the creater of every-thing" means, there
were no-things existing to begin the creation with, there were no-
things to create all the things from, its self-contradicting, stupid
in other words.
Post by Jonah Thomas
So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents and
sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would answer my
prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside my head.
I suspect it was your own head playing games with you.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so mean.
Are you taking the piss? surely you are! I wonder if Craig still
reckons you are rational and intellgent.


Michael Gordge
buzzard
2007-07-19 23:37:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:50:35 -0400
Post by Jonah Thomas
I strongly recommend to you the operationalism championed by PW
Bridgman. Bridgman said that a useful way to define something --
anything -- is to look at what you do to measure it. If you define
things in terms of how you interact with them, you're likely to see
things about them that you might miss otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
Yes, and what you are likely to see that you otherwise would not is you.
Your influence, whether conciously or not, upon the interaction.
When experiments are done double-blind, it is to prevent exactly that.
'Placebo-effect', or some such.
Post by Jonah Thomas
So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents and
sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would answer my
prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside my head.
Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so mean.
And I got the answer that I should pray for my own self, that I needed
to forgive her myself. Spiteful prayers weren't what God was looking
for.
When I prayed to God I got answers that weren't what I wanted, but that
were *righter* than anything I would have thought of myself. God told me
things I didn't particularly want to know, but that I needed to know.
Things a better person than me would want to learn.
After awhile I started thinking that I shouldn't believe in God. After
all, there was no scientific reason to. Probably the answers I got when
I prayed were just things my own subconscious mind made up for me. Why
should I pay attention to my own subconscious mind, which was in no way
God?
Subconciouses are good about that.
They'll point you right to things you'd never conciously think of,
so it is good to listen to yours if you can hear it.
Post by Jonah Thomas
I asked God whether he made the world in 7 days, and he told me that had
nothing to do with me. And he was right. Arguing about evolution has
nothing to do with my God. It has nothing to do with me becoming the
person God can help me to be.
If your subconcious mind is your personal god,
then that is ok.
Especially if it steers you right.

The problem I have with religion is mostly the evangelical part;
those who insist that *I* must accept *their* personal god.
--
Buzzard

(not a 'bird of pray')
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-25 03:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonah Thomas
How do you interact with a "creator of everything"? What do you do to
tell the difference between a "creator of everything" and "creator of
some things"? Until we can answer this question, we're likely not to
know what we're talking about. And until we agree just what it is we're
talking about, it might not make sense to argue about whether it exists.
You made this post. You talk with God. Therefore, your God can talk
with us unless you own God. Nowabouts, I need God's help to get rid
of this thumbchip-hangnail and to dust my room's carpeting so I can
catch up on some work. For the latter, all I need is for the dust to
be blown into a corner of the room forever, that on my person too, so
that I find the time to study and worship God. Why can't God dust for
me?
Post by Jonah Thomas
So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents and
sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would answer my
prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside my head.
Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so mean.
And I got the answer that I should pray for my own self, that I needed
to forgive her myself. Spiteful prayers weren't what God was looking
for.
When I prayed to God I got answers that weren't what I wanted, but that
What do you mean you "got" answers? When one goes to sleep, one
"gets" dreams. Is this what you mean? I can think in voises other
than my own; I can lie near sleep and see imaginary phonebooks with
endles names and numbers that come from nowhere.
Post by Jonah Thomas
were *righter* than anything I would have thought of myself. God told me
things I didn't particularly want to know, but that I needed to know.
Things a better person than me would want to learn.
After awhile I started thinking that I shouldn't believe in God. After
all, there was no scientific reason to. Probably the answers I got when
I prayed were just things my own subconscious mind made up for me. Why
should I pay attention to my own subconscious mind, which was in no way
God? But whenever I got myself into a bind where I didn't know what to
do and I prayed to God, I got answers I needed, that I didn't come up
with myself. After awhile I didn't care whether it was really the God
details? So, rather than automatic writing, your communion is
automatic thinking/feeling. Which makes your director no more God
than some other ghost, alien, demon, or herald.
Post by Jonah Thomas
When I think about God, the God I think of is the one who answers my
prayers. That's my experience. I don't have any other experience of God.
God answers my prayers, and sometimes I don't like the answers but I see
that they're right.
I asked God whether he made the world in 7 days, and he told me that had
nothing to do with me. And he was right. Arguing about evolution has
nothing to do with my God. It has nothing to do with me becoming the
person God can help me to be.
It has everything to do with you, and everyone; it has to do with
what's possibil. You cannot live without the world, or the sun, or
their rules. I could come up with banter like yours in my head-so
what?
Post by Jonah Thomas
found them. I don't have to believe in my god -- I pray to him and he
answers me. But I'm not sure how much I can talk about god to other
people. If they pray and he doesn't answer, what do I tell them to do so
he will answer them? If I can't tell them how to do it so it works, then
it's just my experience.
It sounds like your god onely answers your problems that take
advantage of your guilt-your predisposal to be told. But you still
lack proof that you and your god are not the same person.
Post by Jonah Thomas
If god speaks to you also, we can discuss it. We are different people
with different needs and god might tell us different things. Maybe we
might hear such different things that we doubt it's even the same god
talking to us both. It might be interesting to compare notes, provided
that doesn't get too much in our way. But what of the man who prays and
gets no answer at all? Does he deserve our pity? No, he may have an
important place in the world, carrying that burden. If he argues that
there is no god at all should we try to shout him down? He has no
contact with god and *also* he loses arguments about it? How is that
right? Be kind.
Hey, I work wonders too; I don't need God for my magic.

-Aut
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-26 16:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
How do you interact with a "creator of everything"? What do you do
to tell the difference between a "creator of everything" and
"creator of some things"? Until we can answer this question, we're
likely not to know what we're talking about. And until we agree just
what it is we're talking about, it might not make sense to argue
about whether it exists.
You made this post. You talk with God. Therefore, your God can talk
with us unless you own God. Nowabouts, I need God's help to get rid
of this thumbchip-hangnail and to dust my room's carpeting so I can
catch up on some work. For the latter, all I need is for the dust to
be blown into a corner of the room forever, that on my person too, so
that I find the time to study and worship God. Why can't God dust for
me?
The god who talks to me does what god thinks best and not what I think
best. If I want my room to dust itself it's my lookout to figure out how
to get it to happen. Maybe an electrostatic precipitator, and a
leaf-blower? Get the dust to stick to something else, not the carpet?
Forever is a long time, I don't know about doing anything for forever.

You could try getting God to dust for you. Lots of people try to get
their gods to do things for them.
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents
and sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would
answer my prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside
my head.
Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so
mean. And I got the answer that I should pray for my own self, that
I needed to forgive her myself. Spiteful prayers weren't what God
was looking for.
When I prayed to God I got answers that weren't what I wanted, but that
What do you mean you "got" answers? When one goes to sleep, one
"gets" dreams. Is this what you mean? I can think in voises other
than my own; I can lie near sleep and see imaginary phonebooks with
endles names and numbers that come from nowhere.
Yes, like that. The thoughts that think you, as opposed to the thoughts
you carefully think out and decide are OK to think before you think
them.
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
were *righter* than anything I would have thought of myself. God
told me things I didn't particularly want to know, but that I needed
to know. Things a better person than me would want to learn.
After awhile I started thinking that I shouldn't believe in God.
After all, there was no scientific reason to. Probably the answers I
got when I prayed were just things my own subconscious mind made up
for me. Why should I pay attention to my own subconscious mind,
which was in no way God? But whenever I got myself into a bind where
I didn't know what to do and I prayed to God, I got answers I
needed, that I didn't come up with myself. After awhile I didn't
care whether it was really the God
details? So, rather than automatic writing, your communion is
automatic thinking/feeling. Which makes your director no more God
than some other ghost, alien, demon, or herald.
If you try it, and you get answers, you must judge for yourself how good
the answers are. If they seem like some random ghost then consider them
carefully -- his judgement may be worse than yours. If they seem to come
from a demon then probably better to discard them.
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
When I think about God, the God I think of is the one who answers my
prayers. That's my experience. I don't have any other experience of
God. God answers my prayers, and sometimes I don't like the answers
but I see that they're right.
How would you know?
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
I asked God whether he made the world in 7 days, and he told me that
had nothing to do with me. And he was right. Arguing about evolution
has nothing to do with my God. It has nothing to do with me becoming
the person God can help me to be.
It has everything to do with you, and everyone; it has to do with
what's possibil. You cannot live without the world, or the sun, or
their rules. I could come up with banter like yours in my head-so
what?
It was an answer I needed. If you get an answer you need then that's
good. If the answers are very different that's fine too, what I need and
what you need might be very different.
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
found them. I don't have to believe in my god -- I pray to him and
he answers me. But I'm not sure how much I can talk about god to
other people. If they pray and he doesn't answer, what do I tell
them to do so he will answer them? If I can't tell them how to do it
so it works, then it's just my experience.
It sounds like your god onely answers your problems that take
advantage of your guilt-your predisposal to be told. But you still
lack proof that you and your god are not the same person.
Why would that be important? This is my experience of god. What is your
experience of god? How does god behave around you? Does god communicate
with you at all?
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-31 08:28:21 UTC
Permalink
sorry for lateness
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
How do you interact with a "creator of everything"? What do you do
to tell the difference between a "creator of everything" and
"creator of some things"? Until we can answer this question, we're
likely not to know what we're talking about. And until we agree just
what it is we're talking about, it might not make sense to argue
about whether it exists.
You made this post. You talk with God. Therefore, your God can talk
with us unless you own God. Nowabouts, I need God's help to get rid
of this thumbchip-hangnail and to dust my room's carpeting so I can
catch up on some work. For the latter, all I need is for the dust to
be blown into a corner of the room forever, that on my person too, so
that I find the time to study and worship God. Why can't God dust for
me?
The god who talks to me does what god thinks best and not what I think
best. If I want my room to dust itself it's my lookout to figure out how
to get it to happen. Maybe an electrostatic precipitator, and a
leaf-blower? Get the dust to stick to something else, not the carpet?
Forever is a long time, I don't know about doing anything for forever.
All of that stuff is my intervention and takes money and yet more time
to clean out or set up; the precipitator grabs what's aloft and not in
the rug or on me. All I need is this tiny wonderwork from God-I don't
need Im to cure cancer or AIDS. If I never need to clean again, I
could work at anything without interruption until I get weary or
sleepy (http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+2700). And I could, say,
retranslare all the holy writs and books intom refective Middel
English and Latinago to clear up the thousands of shoddy linguistic
mistakes from those muttish-writerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Cherub#Suckrs).

Forever is not always that long: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+eternity+as-long.
Post by Jonah Thomas
You could try getting God to dust for you. Lots of people try to get
their gods to do things for them.
get?
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
So, let me tell you about God. When I was a little kid, my parents
and sunday-school teachers told me to pray to God and he would
answer my prayers. I did that, and I got answers that echoed inside
my head.
Like, I prayed that God would forgive Julie Stiteler for being so
mean. And I got the answer that I should pray for my own self, that
I needed to forgive her myself. Spiteful prayers weren't what God
was looking for.
When I prayed to God I got answers that weren't what I wanted, but that
What do you mean you "got" answers? When one goes to sleep, one
"gets" dreams. Is this what you mean? I can think in voises other
than my own; I can lie near sleep and see imaginary phonebooks with
endles names and numbers that come from nowhere.
Yes, like that. The thoughts that think you, as opposed to the thoughts
you carefully think out and decide are OK to think before you think
them.
They are still yours. So God is the grownup's imaginary friend.
Rather than teatime chat about gossip or house, the chat's about worry
or money. Imagination craftd every novel and screenplay, such as the
Tanac and Vivli or The Fountainhead and 1984. The holes in their
head, you must admit, were help for all the works, and they alone do
not make them better than grey matter.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
details? So, rather than automatic writing, your communion is
automatic thinking/feeling. Which makes your director no more God
than some other ghost, alien, demon, or herald.
If you try it, and you get answers, you must judge for yourself how good
the answers are. If they seem like some random ghost then consider them
carefully -- his judgement may be worse than yours. If they seem to come
from a demon then probably better to discard them.
If the answers are "good" it does not mean they can onely be from
God. Your God, Jahweh-in-retirement I presum, was often wrong about
the real world:

http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/31/747732-the-bible-as-history-how-god-got-it-wrong
http://google.com/search?q=site:youtube.com+Case-against-Christianity
(Read my comments about the OT-they don't show up in Google. Also go
back and find my links for more fundamental proof against Kristian
beliefs and axioms; they leed back to Google Groups and eGroups.)
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
When I think about God, the God I think of is the one who answers my
prayers. That's my experience. I don't have any other experience of
God. God answers my prayers, and sometimes I don't like the answers
but I see that they're right.
How would you know?
Don't you ever read ahead to shut up?
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
I asked God whether he made the world in 7 days, and he told me that
had nothing to do with me. And he was right. Arguing about evolution
has nothing to do with my God. It has nothing to do with me becoming
the person God can help me to be.
It has everything to do with you, and everyone; it has to do with
what's possibil. You cannot live without the world, or the sun, or
their rules. I could come up with banter like yours in my head-so
what?
It was an answer I needed. If you get an answer you need then that's
good. If the answers are very different that's fine too, what I need and
what you need might be very different.
It was what you wantd; you need the truthe, which you didn't get. The
truthe is not subjective; fooling around is. The answer was wrong-as
wrong as the bullshit any human parent uses to shirk hard questions
they don't know. Ask one beck and learn two answers-that is the goal
and job of any competent teacher.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Autymn D. C.
Post by Jonah Thomas
found them. I don't have to believe in my god -- I pray to him and
he answers me. But I'm not sure how much I can talk about god to
other people. If they pray and he doesn't answer, what do I tell
them to do so he will answer them? If I can't tell them how to do it
so it works, then it's just my experience.
It sounds like your god onely answers your problems that take
advantage of your guilt-your predisposal to be told. But you still
lack proof that you and your god are not the same person.
Why would that be important? This is my experience of god. What is your
experience of god? How does god behave around you? Does god communicate
with you at all?
which god?! Persons I may hear in near-wake darkness do not count, as
they're finite. Look up ignosticism and come back with more
meaningful questions.

-Aut
Benj
2007-08-02 07:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Autymn D. C.
which god?! Persons I may hear in near-wake darkness do not count, as
they're finite. Look up ignosticism and come back with more
meaningful questions.
Whats this? why its Autymn back on the ward internet computer! I guess
you made up with Nurse Ratched, huh?

And speaking of "made up", maybe if you started using words that have
actual meanings rather than some nonsense made up in 1965, you'd be
able to make a point slightly more coherently.

But I must admit ignostic perfectly describes you.

B.
Sketch System
2007-07-23 23:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Evolution says nothing abuot what you ought to do.
That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
According to evolution, instinct is all there is
and there is no right and wrong. In fact, since
you believe that man is an animal, that is all
man needs to follow and the rules of the
animal kingdom have no sense of "what
I worked and paid for, is mine".
What an absurd leap in logic. A lack of a stance on morality is not
the same as a stance against morality. Morality has played a very
important role in society. Do you really think cooperation has no
place in the evolutionary process? Do you have any idea what your
talking about?
Post by Pastor Dave
Rather,
watch some lions steal their food from
other animals, going for the easy grab, rather
than hunting down and catching and killing
their own food. So yours is not yours, but
whomever can take it from you, it is theirs
and you shouldn't object, but rather, should
give way and go off to find other food and
there shouldn't even be a legal system, nor
any crime called "stealing".
Fortunately for us, we are far more intelligent than animals, and we
have constructed societies that make us far more successful than they
are. We are more evolved.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
No, if nothing is wrong then putting people in prison
for any reason or for none is not wrong either.
In that sense, just go and kill anyone you want,
or everyone, to take what is available.
There are no morals under evolution and therefore,
no need for prisons, since nothing is a crime, since
"crime" is a term that springs out of morals ideas
of what is right and what is wrong and prisons
are specifically built to hold criminals.
Um...Evolution is not an ideology. It's a theory created to explain
the changes in life on Earth over the past few Billion years. You
seem really confused here.
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that when the prison is constructed
and used, that is the time at which it is admitted
that evolution is being contradicted by those who
claim to believe in it, regardless if they say the
words or not. Their actions state it loud and clear!
This makes no sense. Again, the Theory of Evolution explains changes
in life on Earth over Billions of years...there is nothing there about
criminology.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Jonah Thomas
Most morality can be explained this way
What way? You've explained nothing. All you've done is run with
false premises.
Post by Pastor Dave
No amount of double talk will interest me.
Double talk?
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that your ideas of morality
are irrelevant, if evolution is true and the
very word "morals" existing is a contradiction
to evolution and no attempt to explain morals
away as some concept of learning from some
experiences will suffice and we both know that,
since we both know that's not the definition of
morality.
I'm starting to wonder if you know much of anything outside the dogma
you're apparently locked into.
Post by Pastor Dave
Face it, evolution cannot explain morality
and we both know what that means.
Neither can Gravity! So let's write posts about how the Theory of
Gravity cannot be true because morality exists. Your reasoning is
deeply flawed.

Please end your ignorance by cracking a book or two. You're doing no-
one a favor by embracing a false vision of Evolution and spreading the
lies.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-15 00:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist. e.g. plants evolve to become resistant to
herbicides, bugs evolve to become resistant penicilin, insects to
insecticide and of course religion evolves to try and become resistant
to those who wake up and need to leave and think for themselves.

Morals dont grow on trees, in the ground nor exist in thin air and
that is true, here read this.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Morality.html


Michael Gordge
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 00:57:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-15 01:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
I gave you examples of proof of evolution, bugs, plants, insects toads
Blue Moon butterflies and ironically christians have all elvolved, but
as a mystic you are required to snip and ignore, why?


Michael Gordge
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 01:36:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:20:07 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
There is no *if* evolution is a fact, it is a fact, it is real, it is
true, it does exist.
That is a claim, not proof.
I gave you examples of proof of evolution, bugs, plants, insects toads
Blue Moon butterflies and ironically christians have all elvolved, but
as a mystic you are required to snip and ignore, why?
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
and that is what you need to prove and can't.
Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
prove your true intent.
--
Pastor Dave

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-15 01:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution, I said that
evolution is a fact, it is real, it exists as true e.g. that plants
evolve to become resistant to herbicides, insects evolve to become
reistant insecticides, man still has hip problems and a totally
useless appendix from when he was a grass eater, christianizm is
evolving to keep people in church e.g. The Old Testament to a New
Testament, now tell me that's not evolution, geeeeeesh who would go to
a church telling men not to sleep with *unclean women*?


Michael Gordge
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 14:03:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:49:39 -0700, Michael Gordge
On Jul 15, 10:36 am, Pastor Dave
Post by Pastor Dave
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution, I said that
evolution is a fact, it is real, it exists as true e.g. that plants
evolve to become resistant to herbicides, insects evolve to become
reistant insecticides, man still has hip problems and a totally
useless appendix from when he was a grass eater, christianizm is
evolving to keep people in church e.g. The Old Testament to a New
Testament, now tell me that's not evolution, geeeeeesh who would go to
a church telling men not to sleep with *unclean women*?
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.

As for "hip problems", man's hip works just fine.
The fact that various people have hip problems,
does not mean that hips are a bad thing. There
are many great engine designs that work
wonderfully, until a part breaks. That doesn't
make the design bad. Sometimes parts just
wear out.

As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".

As for the rest of what you described, it is microevolution
and that is indeed a fact of science. But when approaching
the natural world scientifically, if that is all you have
examples of, that you can scientifically demonstrate,
remembering that science consists of that which is directly
observable, or directly observable results of experimentation,
it should occur to you that that is all you should believe in.

So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above. Asking people
to believe in it if they can't prove a negative, is in
no way, "science". It is religious belief, period and
furthermore, it is hypocrisy for someone to point
their finger at someone for their religious belief,
while they hold their own religious belief, which
they falsely label "science". (:

And just FYI, I'm not going to get into an evolution debate
with you. You cannot prove it and you know that, or you
would have, first shot.

And you can try to dodge the bullet and say that,
"science isn't about proof", but it surely isn't about
fantasy either and science does require one of the
two things that I listed above and that, my friend,
you don't have for macroevolution. :)

And that says all that needs to be said about it. :)

Have a nice day. :)
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Jonah Thomas
2007-07-15 15:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
Post by Pastor Dave
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution,
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.
I thought we were talking about morality. What does macroevolution have
to do with anything? Ah, I see the current thread title. "What Atheists
Can't Answer". Oh. What a boring topic. Atheists can make up any stories
they want, as long as their stories don't have a god in them. Theists
can make up stories that do have gods in them. It isn't all that big a
difference. But once somebody decides their stories will be about a
particular god that they believe particular things about, that restricts
things a lot. On the other hand, an atheist who allows every god except
one only restricts his stories a little bit.
Post by Pastor Dave
As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".
I guess you think he was claiming that bodies aren't perfectly designed.
So if a god designed everything instead of letting it evolve (and
letting things evolve is a perfectly good way for a god to do things, he
could ensure that the environment will select the things he wants, and
just sit back and let it happen, nothing wrong if a god chooses to do it
that way) so anyway, if a god designed everything he didn't do a perfect
job. If we suppose that everything a perfect god designs has to be
perfect, then this would say it wasn't done by a god.

But that would be a stupid argument for lots of reasons. If a perfect
god can't create anything imperfect, that would be a limitation on him,
and why should he accept that limitation? Plus, if the god himself gets
to decide what's perfect and what isn't perfect, then he can just
declare everything perfect and who are we to disagree? "In the same way
that a black widow spider can be a perfect black widow spider or a shark
can be a perfect shark, Roger was a perfect asshole."

Anything that can be done by evolution can be done by a god who wants to
precisely imitate evolution. It's silly to try to use science to
"disprove" religion. And to say that a good god wouldn't try to fool us
that way, means deciding things for a god again. He could make an exact
imitation of an evolved world for reasons we simply don't understand.
They could be good reasons or evil reasons or inconceivable reasons --
god himself must be beyond good and evil.

Personally, I find arguing with argumentative atheists even more
stultifying than arguing with argumentative fundamentalists. When it's a
matter of faith based on the bible, I can accept they think that and
that their rationalisations why they can ignore some things and
interpret other things their own special ways are just quaint. When it's
people who use the same methods using science, it bugs me.
Post by Pastor Dave
So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above.
We've observed a collection of speciation events. Population genetics
gives a fair idea what circumstances could allow a speciation event to
result in two species that adapt to fill two different ecological
niches. Molecular biologists are just beginning to uncover the genetic
mechanisms that result in one species having lots of speciation events
while another has none.

If you're looking for proof on the level of a mathematical theorem we
only have that for some theoretical things. But it all fits together
quite well and there's nothing here that's hard to explain. There's
nothing controversial about it. However, it's no particular help to
atheists who want evidence against a god.
Post by Pastor Dave
And just FYI, I'm not going to get into an evolution debate
with you. You cannot prove it and you know that, or you
would have, first shot.
?? You aren't going to get into an evolution debate? What the heck do
you think you've been doing this whole post?

Anyway, I don't see why any reasonable person would debate evolution.
Evolution is the obvious way to fit the known facts, but it isn't the
only way. It works just as well to say that a god has arranged
everything to precisely imitate evolution, for his own
probably-unknowable purposes. Similarly with Ohm's Law. Maybe
electricity doesn't really work anything like the way physicists have
worked it out, but instead God continually changes things around to make
it *look* like maxwell's equations and ohm's law etc work. There's no
way to prove otherwise.

Back to morality. Ants do the following -- when anything that smells
wrong gets into the nest, they attack it as hard as they can. They
distinguish between those who live in the nest and those who don't. This
is a fundamental principle of morality, discovered independently by
ants. Why do you say that morality can't evolve?
Post by Pastor Dave
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
I get the impression you may sometimes apply this inappropriately. No
offense intended. Do you have a quote for that?
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 22:31:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:27:44 -0400, Jonah Thomas
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
Post by Pastor Dave
You have given zero proof of macroevolution
Because I didn't that claim anything about macroevolution,
Actually, as are almost all evolutionists, you are
taught old information, because new information
continually tears apart macroevolution. Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Go look it up.
I thought we were talking about morality. What does macroevolution have
to do with anything?
Stop being deceptive. You know very well that
I'm not the one who brought this up.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Post by Pastor Dave
So as for microevolution, I believe in it also. It is
directly observable. And no, the "What would stop
macroevolution from happening then?" question
is not a valid question. It is not up to me to prove
a negative. It is up to you to show that macroevolution
exists using the requirements above.
We've observed a collection of speciation events.
Neither you, nor anyone else has ever observed
macroevolution.
Post by Jonah Thomas
Back to morality. Ants do the following -- when anything that smells
wrong gets into the nest, they attack it as hard as they can. They
distinguish between those who live in the nest and those who don't. This
is a fundamental principle of morality, discovered independently by
ants. Why do you say that morality can't evolve?
The ants aren't making a moral judgment.
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-15 22:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
Post by Pastor Dave
The fact that various people have hip problems,
does not mean that hips are a bad thing.
I didn't say hips were a bad thing, and only a christian masochist
would say that the excruitating pain associated with hip problems was,
not a bad thing.
Post by Pastor Dave
There
are many great engine designs that work
wonderfully, until a part breaks. That doesn't
make the design bad. Sometimes parts just
wear out.
Only a mystic would say or suggest the hip was *designed*, alas it
wasn't, however if it was designed, then it would be regarded as a bad
design, or at best, a design that could do with improving
considerably, unless of course you are a surgeon or a health insurance
company.
Post by Pastor Dave
As for what you were saying, we both know what
you were claiming with your supposed "examples".
They are example of evolution, meaning, living entities changing
slowly over time to meet the conditions of its survival from its
changing suroundings / environment.
Post by Pastor Dave
remembering that science consists of that which is directly
observable, or directly observable results of experimentation,
it should occur to you that that is all you should believe in.
Wow, are you suggesting that its possible to believe in things which
are not directly observable and or which cant be experimented with,
e.g. the matter of sticks and stones flesh and bones?

Surely that only leaves believing in things originating OF THE MIND,
dreams, whims, the wished for and nightmares?

But but but the overwhelming evidence is, when you cant *poke what you
believe with a stick* then you are likely to believe that its a good
idea to slam jets into sky-scrappers, or that there exists a creator
of everything, therefore out of nothing.
Post by Pastor Dave
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
But but but when you believe what you cant see or believe in ignorance
of your eye ears nose feel touch, then that only leaves believing in
that which comes entirely from the mind, people who slam jets into sky-
scrappers do that, grown adults who believe there was a creator of
everything, therefore out of nothing or that she was a virgin, do that
too.

Fact is, if you dont believe in matter, then it doesn't matter what
you believe in, so its best just to ignore them, or laugh at them i.e.
ignore or laugh at thoughts without matter.


Michael Gordge
Pastor Dave
2007-07-15 22:31:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Michael Gordge
2007-07-16 06:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
You claimed that the man's appendix was not useless, that it serves a
purpose! you must substaniate that statement because there is evidence
of a contradiction to that claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

The use / purpose of the appendix is undemonstrated in humans, why
dont you explain what is ignorant about that?

Perhaps biology and science can learn something from you.


Michael Gordge
-Phil Clemence
2007-07-22 23:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:57 -0700, Michael Gordge
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by Pastor Dave
Man's
appendix is not useless. It serves a purpose.
Well dont stop there, explain its use or purpose in a human being.
If you don't know what it is, you have proved
your ignorance.
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
I wonder why the author is unknown
Post by Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
there is no god to do any work.
Take responsibility for yourself and others.
Post by Pastor Dave
The world says that seeing is believing.
No it doesn't. That is an old saying and everyone knows it is only partly
true in some circumstances. It is used to say that itf something must be
seen to be believed, then seeing is believing for some. Some might not fully
believe even once they see it.
Post by Pastor Dave
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
That is a stupid idea tryng to be cute.
Post by Pastor Dave
Doctrine is not Scripture.
and.... ?
Autymn D. C.
2007-07-25 04:32:20 UTC
Permalink
XeNO
2007-07-17 05:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Morals exist due to human intelligence. By and large people don't want to
be bothered, and don't want to be killed. So we have an unwritten social
contract with our fellow human beings not to kill each other.

We create a sector within our civilizations to deal with people who break
these contracts. (Law.)

A very strong argument can be made that morals are preferential in natural
selection, hence why we are able to build cities.
Post by Pastor Dave
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
Except that, using the U.S. as an example, atheists comprise 2% of the total
population, and christians--in all their denominations, make up 85%.

In our prisons, Christians are represented with the same 85%

Atheists make up less than one-half of one-percent.

What does this suggest?

It means that belief in god has nothing to do with morality.

It means that being an atheist doesn't make one a mad and raving criminal
with no thought for his fellow man.

I tend to think that most of us live by an interpretation of the
'golden-rule.' Atheists only get one chance at life--so why would we commit
crimes that would put us in prisons? Why would we hurt when we don't want
to be hurt?

--XeNO
Post by Pastor Dave
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
Numinous Cacogen
2007-07-17 14:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.

Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.

I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
Pastor Dave
2007-07-17 16:28:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
Post by Numinous Cacogen
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
b***@my-deja.com
2007-07-18 19:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
Pastor Dave you are a drooling fucktard.

That is all.

B.
JD
2007-08-05 15:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
Post by Numinous Cacogen
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
Then come up with a more plausible theory than evolution. If you did, all
scientifically-minded people would accept it. Of course, it shouldn't make
any reference to things not observable or things for which there is not the
slightest shred of evidence ( i.e. gods(s) ). Those, obviously, are grounds
for immediate rejection.

Go ahead, if you think you can somehow refute all of science - if you think
your knowledge of science is somehow superior to the vast majority of
scientists working in the profession.

The fact is, it makes no sense to even debate evolution with someone who
obviously lacks the scientific background and who is willing to attribute
everything to something he can't show us or even make conceptually
plausible. Until a creationist can prove a creator, there's no point in
dealing with the additional inconsistencies of his "thinking".

JD
Post by Pastor Dave
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
Pastor Dave
2007-08-05 20:27:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:47:06 +0200, "JD"
Post by JD
Post by Pastor Dave
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:16:42 -0700, Numinous Cacogen
Post by Numinous Cacogen
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
I see that you are unacquainted with the works of French Jesuit Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. True, in his lifetime he was discredited by the
Roman Catholic Church, but he was later redeemed by Pope John XXIII.
And Popes are infallible on matters of doctrine, you know.
Teilhard believed that evolution was in fact directed by God toward an
Omega Point, in other words toward an increasing rapport with God. He
taught that life is evolving in a moral direction.
I mention this not because I unquestioningly believe in Teilhard's
ideas, (though it is appealing in in a science-fiction sense), but
because it totally busts your inane false dichotomy between evolution
and morality.
The desperation of evolutionists is incredible!
Like it matters what the Pope says! <chuckle>
Then come up with a more plausible theory than evolution.
Your first error was in assuming you could call evolution
"plausible".
Post by JD
If you did, all scientifically-minded people would accept it.
No, they wouldn't. If that were true, then they wouldn't
believe in evolution in the first place. The reality is, that
evolution is the only thing they can grab onto, to reject
God openly with.

The truth is, we both believe in a miracle. The only
difference is, you believe in a miracle without a
miracle worker.

People in these fields know they believe it by faith.
Enjoy your religion! I give you credit. Yours takes
more faith than mine!

Goodbye now.
--
Pastor Dave

When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown

Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.

The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.

Doctrine is not Scripture.
Sketch System
2007-08-07 23:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
No, they wouldn't. If that were true, then they wouldn't
believe in evolution in the first place.
And your Earth-shattering evidence that will tear this theory down -
and earn you a Nobel Prize, as anyone who could do so undoubtedly
would - is forthcoming?
Post by Pastor Dave
The reality is, that
evolution is the only thing they can grab onto, to reject
God openly with.
Still waiting for your evidence.
Post by Pastor Dave
The truth is, we both believe in a miracle. The only
difference is, you believe in a miracle without a
miracle worker.
Perhaps you refer to the popular straw man argument that the TOE
claims to have solved the mystery of the origin of life?
Post by Pastor Dave
People in these fields know they believe it by faith.
They've told you this?
Post by Pastor Dave
Enjoy your religion! I give you credit. Yours takes
more faith than mine!
Goodbye now.
In other words, you have no evidence to falsify this falsifiable
scientific theory, and all the above is nothing more than baseless
assertion that only represents what you want to be true. Got it.
Sketch System
2007-07-23 22:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
Now, THERE'S a false dicotomy: either evolution is wrong, or anything
goes.

I don't know where you get the idea that there is no evolutionary
advantage to cooperation.

Your absurd reasoning is disturbing. It is no wonder that you want
evolution to be false. Unfortunately for you, your whims do not
dictate reality.

The first thing I think you need to understand is that not all
knowledge is faith-based. Some knowledge is acquired through
observation and experimentation. As such, the Theory of Evolution is
not a faith that competes with yours for the hearts and minds of
believers, likewise offering nothing but baseless assertion. It is
based on reality. It is real. It is open to experimentation and
falsification.

Deal with it.
Buzzard
2007-07-27 22:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
(snip)
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
That doesn't really disprove evolution.
Humans are social animals.

Solitary animals do as they please, and chance
meetings tend to end in fights.

but
Social animals instinctively consider the well-being
not only of themselves, but of the society they
belong to, because their own well-being depends upon
that of their group.

Animalologists (I forget the proper name for this)
have studied a number of species of social animals,
and they do appear to have evolved instincts that
are not so base; instincts to be good citizens of
their hive, their flock, or whatever is called the
group they are in.

Also, look back at aincient human history to see
barbarity whose only modern equivalent was the third
reich. Feudalism, the enslavement of entire defeated
peoples, and such things as were once considered the
order of the day, are now deemed depravities.
Other examples are out there, but the point of this
paragraph is that morality itself seems to be still
in the process of evolving. I wonder what will be
considered ethical and what will not a hundred
years in the future...?

As for definitively proving evolution, that will
require more evidence than we currently have;
evidence that may turn out to have been lost to the
ravages of time, geology, and weather, in which case
this debate will truly never end; but with
what clues we do have now, I consider evolution to be
more likely than not.
--
Buzzard
kenny g
2007-08-06 03:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Dave
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0700, sdr
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If evolution is true, then instinct is what we should
go by and there are no morals. Everything goes
and we can do whatever our instincts tell us to do.
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons.
Actually, it would be the reverse, since if evolution
is true, nothing is "wrong" and therefore, it is a
contradiction to lock anyone up for going along
with "their baser instincts". In fact, to squash them,
is to deny evolution each and every day.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
basic instincts to do bad!? that disgusts me. people who are smart do
not intentionally make bad decisions and if they do it is because they
did not use their head. i can control my basic instincts. we are
responsible for ourselfs because we "can" control ourselfs.
intentional bad decisions (crimes) are caused by lack of intelligence.
evolution is truly real, but i think we have gone too fast to evole to
our world. truly our instincts are still the same as they were 2000
years ago. we got where we are now not by our instincts but our minds.
the church is a crutch for the weak. atheists don't need people to
tell them how to live life, they figure it out themselfs and can
easily change views as needed, something a church or religion cannot.
p.s.- pastor dave- are you the pastor on the 750 (i think) am
station???
Slave
2007-08-13 21:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Flamholz is a liar. He needs to be fired.
bob young
2007-07-15 03:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts?
Humanoids have had to confront this question from the dawn
of time, long before we invented our first gods

When these gods eventually appeared as simple wooden
carvings they were put to good use to frighten evil
doers...... and nothing has changed very much since.

Your question is easy to answer, no need for atheism, simply
a small dose of knowledge and common sense
Post by sdr
Theism, for several
Yes it took an age old problem, hijacked it and used it for
the propagation of ait's own particular myth - so what?
Post by sdr
We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
where does anyone say that
other than religionists frightened that someone using logic
may challenge their primitive thoughts?
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
tooly
2007-07-15 19:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
I beg to differ.
Once again, we confuse religiousity between the dogmatic content on the one
hand, and the 'raised awareness' of state that such dogmatic teachings are
'supposed' to engender on the other [but often do not].

I have observed in this life strong charismatic individuals that can lead a
group entirely on tangents that have nothing to do with reality...all in the
name of science. Just to offer one example, refer to the Prion debaucle a
while back. But I've witnessed 'dogmatism' as close as my own workplace.
I've come to understand the underlying power of science is really just
language...or can be, and often is, wielded by brains that do not really
understand much, but can be relegated a more powerful social position if
only 'in that name of science' and the language it grows.

But what I've also witnessed is a true 'conjuring' of a deeper quality in
our makeup, if one pursues it with a certain sincerity, found in the
emotional content that religious dogma leads us toward [at least in the
Christian faith, so would be my argument...perhaps other faiths in some
way]. We call it 'love' (which once again I have to object to the word
itself, but only attempt to 'conjure' some poor conveyance of it's
condition as perused in that religious experience).

I have often argued that this thing we call 'love' is one and the same
'nurturing' characteristic that was so advantageous to mammals...but now
'aggregated' through religion, as a concerted effort to cultivate and
magnify it's production in ourselves. One of the greatest understandings of
such effort [at least as I have observed it emprically], is the capacity to
circumvent the normal gestaltive 'ball and chain' of objects [ergo, that one
must love 'something'], to find in one's self, almost through sheer force of
will [at least through willful maniuplations of our minds], a capacity to
love 'without object'. Usually, God is that object...but as I have
concluded that we cannot really define God, must be a 'placeholder'...a
symbol of 'non meaning'... by which we might release this 'capacity' in
ourselves [to love at levels before unreached].

Think of what this might mean; a tree finding the capacity to pull up it's
roots and 'move' around...only in ourselves, as abstract BEings, no longer
'constrained' by our environment. Love is it's own virtue...or as I often
think it surely is, harbringer of all 'virtue'. As a 'state'...a condition
of existing, it is not only sublime, but an answer to everything, as I often
argue, not by the solution of equations, but by the literal condition of
'state'. The question itself melts away where there is no need for answers
and equations. I am quite convinced that Love, as professed through the
Christian faith [and perhaps other faiths I'm not intimate with] is a HIGHER
STATE. I'd bet everything on it. I have bet everything on it.

And this gets confusing. God, then becomes both 'real' [but only that state
accomplished as a transcendent love], and 'unreal' at the same time [at
least undefinable, since God represents ALL objects, all creation, etc etc].

The state is only REAL object...even if talking about science.

The kingdom lay within...or something like that.

Anyway, the one thing I wanted to mention here before I go off too much in a
dissertation, is 'love' has one most functional residual IMO...that has
moved us greatly to define us as BEings [the Human essence in fact I would
argue]. That residual is CONSCIENCE. Science allows us to rationally
introspect, but it does not cultivate the emotional content needed to
'aspire' toward HIGHER CONSCIENCE. Rational introspection in fact, without
the benefit of love's grace to imbue our selfish nature, leads to something
almost devilish in our capacity to be clever and negotiate among other
humans; ha...we call it politics you know. Politics without conscience
leads to Machievellian antics that would make Shakespeare proud.

And thusly, is perhaps science's one great flaw [well, second after the fact
that it cannot provide us a life meaning beyond survival...actually giving
us rationale to do away with conscience in the greater scope of things].

Too bad too, for science provides us with so much...but falls short. Anyone
who has ever dealt with the human capacity for intrigue and vile immorality
at the corporate level will know what I am talking about here...all powered
by our most rational, scientific, side. Outwardly, the masks are
impeccable.
Buzzard
2007-07-16 03:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please."
"

Societies that are too rife with selfish individual
behaviours, such that the whims of the one are acted
upon even to the grave detriment of the group, end up
either collapsing or being seriously diminished from
internal strife and lack of cooperation, and are
therefore weeded out by evolution.

Individuals who act as sociopaths will tend to get
caught, *because* society has evolved ways to detect
such treachery, for reasons listed above.
--
Buzzard

(war = plenty of meat for the vultures)
chazwin
2007-07-24 00:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by sdr
What Atheists Can't Answer
By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007;
Page A17 Washington Post
" Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation,
uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of
other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between
good and bad instincts? Theism, for several
millennia, has given one answer: We should
cultivate the better angels of our nature because
the God we love and respect requires it. While many
of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
False and circular argument! How do we choose good: answer choose
good!
False because many theist decisions have encouraged killing death,
torture and destruction: but then they were "good" becasue theists
said so!
Post by sdr
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.
False argument two: there has been no "dilemma" stated here!

We follow the "good" regardless of any god, becasue it is in our
nature to follow that which we see as "good". If our culture tells us
that "god is good" and to strap explosives to our bodies to kill the
infidel then that is good too.
Only atheism can hope to provide a set of "good" things that are not
measured against the stupidity of superstition.

It
Post by sdr
cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts"
because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental
wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would
be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To
hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm
going to do whatever I please." "
You common sense and understanding of history is conflicted, my
friend.
Tell Joan d'arc that burning witches for god is good, tell the victims
of the Spanish inquisition, tell the Christians that dies at the hands
of the the good theists of Rome; and the pagans that died at the hands
of the good Christians in the same arena; tell the inhabitants of
Jericho put ot the sword in the name of god.
Post by sdr
If it were the case that religion is our instructor,
then there would be no prisons. There are, and
consider, further, that the most religious (at least
professing to be) group in this country is the two
million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said.
The prison population shows a smaller proportion of atheists inside
than are represented outside.
Post by sdr
But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any
way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then
but think about the depravity of priests and preachers
--who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be
enough to remove any convictions you might have had
about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally
evil nature."
Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE
their God requires it are only setting themselves up
for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good.
Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform"
their congregations that God wants them to fight this
or that war (Confederate preachers urged their
congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or
to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the
best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told
their congregations that murdering Armenians for their
possessions (and raping their women and children
before slaughtering them) was what God expected of
them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth
about Islam before the whole world is so impossible,
the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the
Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place).
But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are
ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered"
by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand)
instructions of our parents and societies: Every child
KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by
the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't,
then that is a certain sign that such children live in
a warped and perverted society or family.
The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how
to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had
better not get caught doing it.
Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who
still does not know the difference between Good and
Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously-
uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know,
and tell them.
S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
t***@gmail.com
2016-10-18 06:13:15 UTC
Permalink
You seem to be unaware of the fact that humans can be sane, and not serial killers. The solo – called "dilemma" you think atheism has, is solved simply by remembering that people are human.
Loading...