07 Mar 10
Originally posted by josephwI may or may not have answers. I doubt if I could ever have a complete answer (nor could you).
If an atom exists, then it is an absolute that atoms exist. [b]It follows logically, that, if atoms exist absolutely, the question of their origin comes into play.
1. Did the atom always exist? If so, how? What explanation can be given?
2. Did the atom have a beginning? If so, how did that happen? [/b]
The evolutionary hypothesis cannot account for the origin of the atom.
Which hypothesis is this? Are you referring to "The Theory of Evolution" (note that I am not talking about a hypothesis)?
If so, then you are correct, it cannot account for the origin of the atom as it does not try to do so. It has very little to do with atoms and their origins other than the fact that most of its subject matter is typically composed of atoms. Did you not know this?
(As an aside, the theory of evolution is disintegrating under scientific scrutiny as we speak)
Which scientific scrutiny? What state of disintegration has it reached? How come you know about it but I don't? Is it a secret you should not have told me?
The only logical, rational, conclusion to this discussion is this question; Did man create God, or did God create man?
If it is logical, then you should be able to explain it in a logical manner not as an unsupported claim. How does that conclusion follow from the question of the existence of an atom? Explain.
We can't prove it one way or the other. But if there is, "God", then only He can prove anything.
And He has.
Not scientifically. And I can bet that if I question you further you would not only withdraw that claim but reverse it ie claim that he deliberately avoids such proofs.
07 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI find that interesting. How do you justify something that most other people consider highly immoral?
I also accept slavery as a legitimate response to human exigencies, such as for example, when early settlers colonised new territories and suffered limited resources.
Should global warming become catastrophic, I would also recognise the right of the state to impose some of servitude on the population. I do not, however, accept slavery when racially discriminatory or when it is hereditary.
If you don't accept racially discriminatory or hereditary slavery, then do you also reject as immoral most actual cases of slavery that occurred when early settlers colonized new territories as it almost invariably included either racial, tribal and/or hereditary elements. ie is it just the principle you accept?
Do you reject as immoral the tribal instances listed in the old Testament?
This servitude in times of catastrophe, would it include the main elements of slavery? ie a removal of most 'human rights', treating people as property etc. Or would it be more like conscription in times of war - where right to life is to some extent removed, but many other rights are maintained.
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI also accept slavery as a legitimate response to human exigencies, such as for example, when early settlers colonised new territories and suffered limited resources.
[b]Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.
I, however, do accept slavery to some extent. I accept penal slavery, that is, slavery as a form of punishment for criminals. I also accept slavery as a legitimate response to human exigencies, such as for example, when early settlers colonised new terr ...[text shortened]... lation. I do not, however, accept slavery when racially discriminatory or when it is hereditary.[/b]
Wow. Colonialism justifies slavery.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI find that interesting. How do you justify something that most other people consider highly immoral?
I find that interesting. How do you justify something that most other people consider highly immoral?
[b]Should global warming become catastrophic, I would also recognise the right of the state to impose some of servitude on the population. I do not, however, accept slavery when racially discriminatory or when it is hereditary.
If you don't accept of war - where right to life is to some extent removed, but many other rights are maintained.[/b]
Well, properly understood, I don't think I have said anything controversial. All I am recognising is that exigent circumstances may require some sort of servitude. I do not think the idea of penal servitude is much up for dispute either. Does anyone here have a problem with prisons?
If you don't accept racially discriminatory or hereditary slavery, then do you also reject as immoral most actual cases of slavery that occurred when early settlers colonized new territories as it almost invariably included either racial, tribal and/or hereditary elements. ie is it just the principle you accept?
Absolutely. To clarify, I was not actually advocating that colonists enslave natives; what I had in mind is something like the Australian settlement. Prisoners brought to Australia were assigned to some necessary task, building or cultivating land or making clothes (although this is not really described as slavery.)
Do you reject as immoral the tribal instances listed in the old Testament?
Yes. In fact, the Old Testament condemns these too. The betrayal and enslavement of Joseph, forced from his country, is an obvious example.
This servitude in times of catastrophe, would it include the main elements of slavery? ie a removal of most 'human rights', treating people as property etc. Or would it be more like conscription in times of war - where right to life is to some extent removed, but many other rights are maintained.
Well, I don't think slavery should deprive people of natural rights. Slavery is not defined by the absence of rights but of liberties and it seems common sense that in a crisis of huge proportions the state would have the right to deprive people of certain freedoms.
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterOne argument I remember concerning morality (from an evolutionary view) was that man established morals over time that would be what was best for the tribe or clan and what would help man's survival the most. I think man is a moral agent (we can argue because God made us that way)so throwing out God will not change man trying to be moral. I would venture to say however there has to be moral absolutes or everything would just be relative. I could then justify killing people for no reason at all. If there are no moral absolutes than who can argue against it?
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?
Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".
Manny
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterSurely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not "real" but illusionary.
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?
Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".
Huh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
Also, what exactly is meant by morality's being "real" or not "real"? Are you talking about moral realism, in the sense that moral claims purport to report a realm of objective moral facts, values, etc? If so, then I thought we already discussed this a long time and agreed that your view is decidedly NOT realist. Are you forgetting that your own meta-ethical view is, in fact, subjectivist?
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterNow I have a question for you.
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?
Suppose God exists, or you believe he does.
Why do you pray to him? Why do you worship him?
Is it:
a) a selfish desire for self preservation?
b) merely following an illusory evolved feeling that something that big needs to be worshiped? (ie evolved respect for father figures)
c) some other reason that can be explained in terms of non-illusory absolutes?
What I am getting at, is if you put God back in the equation, how does it solve your dilemma?
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by menace71I would say that morality at its root has to to with the recognition that other human being have a similar experience to ours, and it is a feeling of compassion or fairness that causes us to see it as wrong to intentionally cause others harm.
I would venture to say however there has to be moral absolutes or everything would just be relative. I could then justify killing people for no reason at all. If there are no moral absolutes than who can argue against it?
Manny
Is this absolute? I suppose so. But nevertheless it is evolved for reasons of the survival of the species (and seems to be quite common throughout the animal kingdom).
I don't think the idea of justifying killing people for no reason is relevant. We don't need to justify our morals to anyone but ourselves. A judge doesn't care whether you were morally correct, he cares what the law says.
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadA judge doesn't care whether you were morally correct, he cares what the law says.
I would say that morality at its root has to to with the recognition that other human being have a similar experience to ours, and it is a feeling of compassion or fairness that causes us to see it as wrong to intentionally cause others harm.
Is this absolute? I suppose so. But nevertheless it is evolved for reasons of the survival of the species (and se ...[text shortened]... ourselves. A judge doesn't care whether you were morally correct, he cares what the law says.
Actually, part of what a judge does is make his determination in light of both. I have read countless cases wherein the morality of the situation was commented upon right along with the law.
08 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd how does he determine what is moral or not? Does he use his own sense of morality, what he perceives to be the general average, or a combination of the two? Could the morals he uses be called absolute, or relative?
Actually, part of what a judge does is make his determination in light of both. I have read countless cases wherein the morality of the situation was commented upon right along with the law.
I think our justice system is normally based on a consensus of the society as to what is moral. Though obviously 'the society' really means 'whoever is in charge' and thus racial discrimination may occur and there is a strong bias in favor of the rich.
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe looks to the philosophy of Natural Rights that all or nearly all nations are based on. It's the worldwide common system of morality as it applies to the law.
And how does he determine what is moral or not? Does he use his own sense of morality, what he perceives to be the general average, or a combination of the two? Could the morals he uses be called absolute, or relative?
I think our justice system is normally based on a consensus of the society as to what is moral. Though obviously 'the society' really mea ...[text shortened]... e' and thus racial discrimination may occur and there is a strong bias in favor of the rich.
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho doesn't recognize Natural Rights?
There is no worldwide common system - hence the different laws in different countries.
Sometimes laws are enacted which violate those rights, or warlords take over and ignore them, etc. but if you can give me an example of a nation or international legal entity like the UN etc that does not acknowledge natural rights I would be very surprised. I can pick any nation on this planet at random and I bet I would be able to find recognition of natural rights in it's constitution.
08 Mar 10
5 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungE.g. Part II of the Samoan Constitution. Russia, China, Nigeria, South Africa, UN, EU are also examples.
Who doesn't recognize Natural Rights?
Sometimes laws are enacted which violate those rights, or warlords take over and ignore them, etc. but if you can give me an example of a nation or international legal entity like the UN etc that does not acknowledge natural rights I would be very surprised. I can pick any nation on this planet at random and I bet I would be able to find recognition of natural rights in it's constitution.
EDIT - Chapter 3 of the Iranian Constitution.
EDIT2 - Article 26 of Chapter 5 of the Saudi "Basic Law".
EDIT3 - Argentina and Chapter 7 of the Cuban Constution.
EDIT4/5 - From Chapter I, Article 5 of the Vietnamese Constitution:
The State ensures and constantly fosters the people's rights as masters in all spheres