<p>Creationists truly fascinate me. Many of them aren't stupid - I know some that are otherwise quite intelligent. It's baffeling that someone I know can study and excel at enginneering while rejecting every shread of scientific evidence supporting evolution. In the same way that it's baffeling that an otherwise intelligent person can, with a copy of the Koran in his hand, go into a subway and blow dozens of people to smithereens in the name of Allah. (Not exactly morally on par with each other, but baffeling nonetheless.) I think the one thing we need fear most in this world is fundamentalism, be it Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish or Atheistic.</p>
<p>As for the "question everything" argument, my view is this Metaphysically, I am a skeptic. Realistically, I am an empiricist.</p>
<p>I rely on rational argument to establish my opinions.</p>
<p>Interesting...yet, wait...
the wily, skeptical question everything mind speaks [GDW]: </p>
<p>Additionally, I don't see why we can't just agree that murder and rape are bad.</p>
<p>Hey I thought you were a cagey, inquiring skeptic.</p>
<p>Skeptical of everything except skepticism, perhaps? 'Skepticism', I now see as 'Absolutism' in the mind of the intellectual gymnist...a dangerous creature indeed.</p>
<p>And I found this philosophical conundrum fascinating:
Believe me, though, I'm no Objectivist--I think my hatred of capitalism pretty much disqualifies me)</p>
<p>Why? How about this as food for thought: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. [sorry about the word soul in the above quote, I know it is verboten in such circles as yours; hopefully, youll all be able to cleanse the English language of these words that are notorious for their ability to mislead the young into committing thought-crimes].</p>
<p>So, which category do you fall into? Id say little statesmen sounds boringthough Im sure that all of you who have bestowed prophet-hood on St. Darwin (something he himself would have been repulsed by) find your own stately pontifications and pseudo-mystical suggestions to be fascinating and edifying. As I understand, you even have your own de facto priests, like Russell, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre (+Nausea), Skinner for instances. If they dont sell it, you dont buy it. Seems like a rather dull and nihilistic product I mean dogma to me.</p>
<p>I suppose it gives the courage to make hyperbolic proclamations like:
Darwin gave more logic and reasoning to the course and origin of humans than anyone.
Wow, I cant wait to read his Little Red Book, Mao himself seems so passé without the youth culture; Darwin is where its at!</p>
<p>If God is moral BY DEFINITION, then morality is a simple tautology (and logically, he cannot exist, but we've covered this).</p>
<p>I dont think tautology means what you think it meansInigo, The Princess Bride. </p>
<p>Christianity hasn't been led astray. It was never on course to begin with. </p>
<p>Then for two thousand years, people have believed the greatest lie ever told. But that is not the most remarkable thing about itthe most remarkable thing is that you believe those who preceded you for two thousand years were complete foolsyou sound divine in your presumptions are you sure you are an atheist or are Gods themselves neither theists or atheists but the object of such discourse itself?</p>
<p>little generals and wanna-be gods are so silly and cute.</p>
<p>I am going to major in biology, am a devout Christian, creationist, and believe in an abstracted form of intelligent design that synthesizes (or at least accounts for) scientific theory and evidence with the concepts demonstrated by the Bible (I've read the whole thing several times through and have what I feel to be a fairly strong grasp on the material).<br>
[QUOTE]
"You just described the beliefs that I believe in the very core of my soul as "horrible." I find that VERY offensive. You can disagree but do not degrade or insult without any basis whatsoever."</p>
<p>I did not attack you personally. I simply indicated my feelings toward the idea that we are judged based on whether we accept a set of beliefs--some of them directly contradicted by observation--with no basis whatsoever. I find this horrible, for very good reason: the implication is that blind obedience is encouraged and knowledge and thruth-seeking are punished. It's 1984 all over again: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." If you ask me, your God is just a glorified Big Brother. (Don't try to weasel out of this by stating that "God IS Truth" or something like that. If he were, and he judged us based on our belief in him, then he would be rationally and ethically bound to make his existence more evident.)
[/QUOTE]
See, your problem is that you are equating God with man. God is not bound by silly rules such as ethics, because he is above all creation. YOU assume that belief must be based on evidence. God cannot be bound! What does it mean to be bound? It means that there are laws, some higher determination that subordinates the individual. Such laws are causes, and their effects the subordination. However, it follows that each effect has a cause. God is the first cause. Any rights and principles are thereby under God, and not even applicable. Defining laws that bind God is akin to attributing the laws of riding a bicycle to gravity, which is a process that cannot be done in reverse. You're applying base political theory and novels of relativistic fragmented origin to the supreme unity of the universe. It doesn't logically work that way.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"The judge at the time of judgment is God, not yourself. What you believe is meaningless."
"First, it doesn't matter what you want. The ultimate force in the universe bends not to what you want. Second, He doesn't send people to paradise or damnation based on actions, He does it based on faith. The freedom of choice to believe in God is the ultimate freedom. Any other perceptions of freedom are illusions."</p>
<p>If this is true, I have no reason to live and should kill myself right now, since I obviously have no freedom and no chance of independence from the yoke of divine oppression (man, that's a cool phrase). Furthermore, if this is the nature of God, then I HATE GOD, since this description is obviously that of an irrational, sadistic, freedom-hating tyrant, not a benevolent force of any kind.
[/QUOTE]
You need to read the Bible. It is a closed system that logically all fits together, but you are interpolating from political theories and it doesn't work. Man is fallen and hellbound by nature. He deserves eternal damnation. </p>
<p>Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.</p>
<p>God gives us redemption from our sins because he loves us. We should not love him back for reasons of self-interest and afterlife gain, but simply because he loves us. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If God is moral BY DEFINITION, then morality is a simple tautology (and logically, he cannot exist, but we've covered this). You are obviously much more nihilistic than I am.
[/QUOTE]
God is not defined. I believe that everything is logical, except God, because just as logic relies on assumptions to progress through reason, the idea of logic itself must have an assumption. As all else is encompassed by logic, logic is defined by God, who in turn is not defined. God bears (or is?) an eternal knowledge beyond our comprehension, beyond the limits of logic</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Additionally, I don't see why we can't just agree that murder and rape are bad.
[/QUOTE]
Sure we can. But what is 'bad'?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
This doesn't need to be revealed to us by some divine force. I think principles like the Golden Rule are perfectly rational and can be established without the need for God. At this point, it's just Occam's Razor--don't multiply entities unnecessarily. (I just realized that I sound a lot like Ayn Rand. Believe me, though, I'm no Objectivist--I think my hatred of capitalism pretty much disqualifies me)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it really is quite simple once you start to understand the Bible. I feel that Occam's razor serves the most purpose in utilitarian matters. I disagree with his idea that there is nothing beyond the individual. I feel that limiting your conception to follow the rule might be useful as a guide in an abstract sense, but to strictly adhere to it in attempting to discover truth is not wise, as truth very possibly could be extremely complicated.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Your Bible verses do not reflect love in any form with which I am familiar. Rather, they exhibit their precise intent--control of people brainwashed enough to believe that their purpose in life is to abandon all semblance of self and acquiesce to the rule of others.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, taken alone I can see that. Taken in context they do express love, however, but only an open mind and a good deal of reading could expose that to you.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As for the "question everything" argument, my view is this:
I don't believe anything is truly knowable in the strictest sense of the word, so I may be deemed a skeptic. However, if reality is an illusion, then nothing matters anyway, so I act under the assumption that it is not.
[/QUOTE]
If the quest for truth is only a pragmatism, and the underlying skepticism remains a possibility, then I would that think that still nothing matters.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Metaphysically, I am a skeptic. Realistically, I am an empiricist. Basically, I agree with Bertrand Russell: "What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know."
[/QUOTE]
It saddens me that you would limit the reaches of your thought deliberately so. Can science really explain, love for example? Even if you map out the exact brain processes, even if you can emulate it, is that all that it is? It seems that there has to be something more, because then our existence really is meaningless. I think that even the simplest individual sees things that science cannot, and science alone cannot account for art, for example.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"I am reminded of the words of King Solomon, Proverbs 1:22:</p>
<p>22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?"</p>
<p>Not a day goes by that I don't wonder that about Christianity. By the way, thank you for demonstrating what I have argued all along--that George Carlin has exactly as much divine authority as the Bible. Face it, the only functional difference between a religion and a cult is the number of people who believe it. In fact, I'd take George over God any day--at least he's funny
[/QUOTE]
You see, as I have actually demonstrated (unlike what you prematurely conclude), you have to understand the Bible to understand it. You clearly do not understand it, so why are you judging it? If you really do adore science and reason so much, why not rationally condemn something, by knowing the whole of it? At least know the fundamentals. You certainly are capable of properly analyzing it, as you have demonstrated.</p>
<p>Fountain, I am very happy to see that there are still some people in today's society that don't follow along the prevalent intellectual tides (which is something that you actually could explain through Darwin's ideas ;)). Talk about brainwashing :).</p>
<p>"I am going to major in biology, am a devout Christian, creationist, and believe in an abstracted form of intelligent design that synthesizes (or at least accounts for) scientific theory and evidence with the concepts demonstrated by the Bible (I've read the whole thing several times through and have what I feel to be a fairly strong grasp on the material)."</p>
<p>Can you explain your theory on the creation of the world/humans in more detail? Maybe in another thread or something?</p>
<p>If it were up to religious people, we'd still have things like the Spanish inquisition going on. Science is what brings us to reality.</p>
<p>Youre right, the fact that the worlds waters are undrinkable, the rising threat of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, the thick smog surrounding every major city and responsible for the lung disease and deaths of untold babies, children and the elderly, etc .all are meaningless trifles compared to the Spanish Inquisition. </p>
<p>On another note, religion (Christianity, specifically) has given us:</p>
<ol>
<li> Shakespeare (risked his life and career for his Catholic faith)</li>
<li> Milton (Paradise Lost? Sounds pretty Christian)</li>
<li> Dante (Divine Comedy
need I say more)</li>
<li> Newton [<a href="http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Epicard/Newton.html%5D%5B/url">http://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/Newton.html][/url</a>]</li>
<li> Locke</li>
<li> Pascal</li>
<li> Descartes</li>
<li> Michael Faraday [<a href="http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/%5D%5B/url">http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/][/url</a>]</li>
<li> Washington</li>
<li>Lincoln</li>
<li>Martin Luther King Jr.</li>
<li> Mother Theresa. </li>
<li> Chaucer </li>
<li> William Blake</li>
<li> Harriet Beecher Stowe</li>
<li> Machiavelli
.o no wait, hes on your list. </li>
<li> Yeats</li>
<li> Dostoevsky</li>
<li> Galileo </li>
<li> Copernicus</li>
<li> Guttenberg (famous for the printing press)</li>
<li> Kepler</li>
<li> Da Vinci</li>
<li> Michelangelo</li>
<li> Pasteur</li>
<li> Tolstoy</li>
<li> T. S. Elliot</li>
<li> C. S. Lewis</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>Heres a different list:
1. Machiavelli
2. Hobbes
3. Stalin
4. Hitler
5. Mao
6. Pol Pot</p>
<p>Id say this list of atheists is responsible for, or philosophically supported, more atrocities against humanity and nature than any of us could dream of, even in our deepest darkest most horrifying nightmares. Still, I suppose it is so much easier to limit our considerations to things that happened hundreds of years ago than to discuss the atrocities committed in our own or our parents' lifetimes.</p>
<p>The age of rationalism has been the real blessing to us, not the "age of enlightnment"</p>
<p>Interesting. </p>
<p>Maybe the Atheists dictionary.com provides more dogmatically appropriate definitions of the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Rationalism, as my standard dictionaries define them as having occurred more or less simultaneously. You seem to draw very subtle and inappropriate distinctions, as it becomes dogmatically necessary but thats just my take.</p>
<p>Darwin gave more logic and reasoning to the course and origin of humans than anyone.</p>
<p>More than Aristotle, Socartes, Plato, Kant, Descartes, Liebnitz?</p>
<p>this is the Origin of Life thread of 3 months back. Concentrates majorly on abiogenesis. </p>
<p>just for reference.</p>
<p>nazi ideologies were based on darwinism.</p>
<p>charles darwin was the anti-christ.</p>
<p>check out <a href="http://www.nightmareofdisbelief.com%5B/url%5D">www.nightmareofdisbelief.com</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
"Youre right, the fact that the worlds waters are undrinkable, the rising threat of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, the thick smog surrounding every major city and responsible for the lung disease and deaths of untold babies, children and the elderly, etc
.all are meaningless trifles compared to the Spanish Inquisition."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only the third world countries suffer from bad water, lung disease, and all the counter examples you put up there. The average person doesn't suffer from these things. Furthermore, biological and chemical weapons are currently illegal (maybe you didn't know this). Also, the only two nuclear weapons used in war were launched on Japan and that was not in vain - it ended WWII. Nuclear energy is used much more to create electricity today than it is to use weapons.</p>
<p>Your counter-examples are quite ineffective. This isn't the cold-war. Countries are more lax and educated about nuclear weapons now. Furthermore, has it ever occured to you that the breakthroughs in biological sciences have made it possible the average human lifespan to be much longer. Centuries ago, the average lifespan was around 30-35. Today, it is 70 in many places. </p>
<p>The population of the Earth has SKY-ROCKETED ever since the industrial revolution. Humans have thrived and succeeded so much more because of science. </p>
<p>And your going to try and and use "Shakespeare", "Milton", and "Dante" as an counter-example? If your rooting for Christianity, maybe you can make better arguments. </p>
<p>BTW, Jesus was for real but his teachings have been severely corrupted through the ages.</p>
<p>Let me walk you through this so you can understand my ineffective views:</p>
<p>You first offer this gem of common decency:</p>
<p>Only the third world countries suffer from bad water, lung disease, and all the counter examples you put up there.</p>
<p>If this were true, would that make the horror of it somehow better for you? If its not destroying the lives of you and your crew, does that make it agreeable to you? Unless those human beings living their lives in the third-world are below us (Mexico, China, India well, lets just say the bulk of the worlds population). </p>
<p>Apparently, there were certain industrious people in the American South a couple hundred years ago who shared your view in their appreciation and affection of Africans. How enlightened and modern of you, to revive such utilitarian sentiments.
Moreover, your assertion is patently false; it is by no means only the third world countries. You need to think past your dogma:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020354.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020354.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/</a>
<a href="http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315910%5B/url%5D">http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315910</a>
<a href="http://www.waterhealthconnection.org/index.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.waterhealthconnection.org/index.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3733%5B/url%5D">http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3733</a>
<a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept98/ecodisease.hrs.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept98/ecodisease.hrs.html</a></p>
<p>Well, it seems you are still bandaging your wounds and ripping your garments over the Spanish Inquisition, eh? 16th century got you all down in the dumps? Well, I have some very bad news; it gets worse. </p>
<p>As I understand, there have been a number of horrors and atrocities since the 16th cent, progressively worse and secular in origin and essence: youve heard of Stalin, Mao and Hitler no doubtturns out they were some bad-a s s atheists with a real bad attitude and a yearning to act it out. </p>
<p>BTW, Jesus was for real</p>
<p>I suppose there is a point to your discovery, hows that old wheel thing coming along? Sounds like quite an invention.</p>
<p>Hitler does not represent the triumph of science and age of rationalism. All the smartest scientists in the world (Jewish back then) ran away from Europe and came to America for a reason. Don't use Stalin and Hitler as a counter-example. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose there is a point to your discovery, hows that old wheel thing coming along? Sounds like quite an invention.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I said that I believe Jesus was real, I said it because I wanted to also emphasize that his teachings have been corrupted. I'm not discovering anything "new". I've believed this all my life. What I was trying to say however, was that organized religion has been a waste because the teachings from the true leader have been corrupted. Only few Christians in this world are "true" ones. </p>
<p>Don't have time to type out a full rebuttal right now but I'll get to it later.</p>
<p>Don't use the Inquisition as an example of theology and faith, it isn't. </p>
<p>Both Stalin and Mao were, by common definition progressives of the Left, who were not only unbelievers, they tried to annihilate religious faith by root and branch while proclaiming their cowardly-new-worldexecuted hundreds of thousands of people of faith.</p>
<p>Myself, I've won two state wide competitions in chemistry (Junior and senior year), I plan on majoring in chemistry and philosophy at Dartmouth this Fall. I'm nothing like anti-science, I love the study of science...I'm anti-BS and I'm sorry that conflicts with your rhetorical method.</p>
<p>Is that why you bring up examples like "Dante", "Milton", and "Shakespeare"? I think that you're really contradicting yourself when you say "I'm anti-BS".</p>
<p>"Only the third world countries suffer from bad water, lung disease, and all the counter examples you put up there."</p>
<p>You standing by this one?</p>
<p>It smells like B-S. And as it stands, the eternal value of Shakespere requires no defense; as I understand it, even Einstein was moved by the Bard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Both Stalin and Mao were, by common definition progressives of the Left, who were not only unbelievers, they tried to annihilate religious faith by root and branch while proclaiming their cowardly-new-worldexecuted hundreds of thousands of people of faith.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I acclaim science for advancing humanity, I'm accrediting the scientists like Benjamin Franklin, Edison, and all the other famous scientists. Ofcourse, there are going to be mistakes in the chapter of modern sciene like Mao but when you have a country stuck in third world condition and poverty, Communism suddenly becomes dangerously appealing. Don't bring Communism and Mao when arguing against my point. Politics will always be corrupt regardless of scientific advances. Do you think the church, when it had a major involvement in the government in Europe was that much better and "holier" than communists? Using politics to attack my argument seems like a desperate measure on your behalf.</p>
<p>I think you're more full of it than you realize. You sure you won two awards in chemistry?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Only the third world countries suffer from bad water, lung disease, and all the counter examples you put up there."</p>
<p>You standing by this one?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that it's a fair statement to say that bad water, etc... is more of an issue and a realistic issue in third world countries as opposed to the more developed countries. So yes, I am still "standing by this one". I don't think it's "smells" quite near as much as B.S. as when you use Milton and Chaucer to support your argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the eternal value of Shakespere requires no defense
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do try and spell Shakespeare correctly if you're going to use him to support your arguments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On another note, religion (Christianity, specifically) has given us:</p>
<ol>
<li>Shakespeare (risked his life and career for his Catholic faith)</li>
<li>Milton (Paradise Lost? Sounds pretty Christian)</li>
<li>Dante (Divine Comedy
need I say more)</li>
<li>Newton [<a href="http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Epicard/Newton.html%5D%5B/url">http://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/Newton.html][/url</a>]</li>
<li>Locke</li>
<li>Pascal</li>
<li>Descartes</li>
<li>Michael Faraday [<a href="http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/%5D%5B/url">http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/][/url</a>]</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>Lincoln</li>
<li>Martin Luther King Jr.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>Interesting how you use Newton and Faraday in your support of Christianity when they did much more to advance humanity through science and rationalism. Newton was actually slightly afraid to publish his books because he was afraid of dangerous criticism from religious people. Furthermore, Martin Luther King Jr. followed the steps of Mahatma Gandhi and used him as a role model to build his "non-violence" approach. That was more useful to the pastor than anything else. If anything, I'd say Gandhi was more a help to Martin Luther than organized religion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am going to major in biology, am a devout Christian, creationist, and believe in an abstracted form of intelligent design that synthesizes (or at least accounts for) scientific theory and evidence with the concepts demonstrated by the Bible (I've read the whole thing several times through and have what I feel to be a fairly strong grasp on the material).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Great. Let me know whether you're still a creationist after you actually TAKE a few biology courses, let alone attempt graduate work. You'd be laughed out of the room!</p>
<p>
[quote]
See, your problem is that you are equating God with man. God is not bound by silly rules such as ethics, because he is above all creation. YOU assume that belief must be based on evidence. God cannot be bound! What does it mean to be bound? It means that there are laws, some higher determination that subordinates the individual. Such laws are causes, and their effects the subordination. However, it follows that each effect has a cause. God is the first cause. Any rights and principles are thereby under God, and not even applicable. Defining laws that bind God is akin to attributing the laws of riding a bicycle to gravity, which is a process that cannot be done in reverse. You're applying base political theory and novels of relativistic fragmented origin to the supreme unity of the universe. It doesn't logically work that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Supreme power is not an excuse to do things for no reason. If God punishes based on lack of "faith" (a euphemism for baseless belief, if you ask me), then I reject his illegitimate authority, just as I would that of any other totalitarian. The rules DO apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You need to read the Bible. It is a closed system that logically all fits together, but you are interpolating from political theories and it doesn't work. Man is fallen and hellbound by nature. He deserves eternal damnation.</p>
<p>Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.</p>
<p>God gives us redemption from our sins because he loves us. We should not love him back for reasons of self-interest and afterlife gain, but simply because he loves us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have read the Bible, and if that God existed, then I would be forced to hate him with every fiber of my being, since his existence and nature negate everything I value. God expects obedience; I will not obey blindly. He wants control; he will not get it from me. God is a dictator; the analogy applies. Put simply, I want to be a free individual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
God is not defined. I believe that everything is logical, except God, because just as logic relies on assumptions to progress through reason, the idea of logic itself must have an assumption. As all else is encompassed by logic, logic is defined by God, who in turn is not defined. God bears (or is?) an eternal knowledge beyond our comprehension, beyond the limits of logic
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, I see. You have retreated to the position that God is above all criticism, since he possesses some mysterious property that makes him immune to logic and ethics. Remember: those who make the law are bound to live by it. You ask me to believe in a God who can contradict himself at whim, who can commit the most heinous of crimes without culpability. I cannot do that; if any entity decides that my freedom does not exist, I hold it responsible, omnipotent or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure we can. But what is 'bad'?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are very close to asking me what the definition of "is" is. Bad is an adjective describing an undesirable action or set of circumstances. In this context, it would describe an action that ought not to be performed, such as murder or rape.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, and it really is quite simple once you start to understand the Bible. I feel that Occam's razor serves the most purpose in utilitarian matters. I disagree with his idea that there is nothing beyond the individual. I feel that limiting your conception to follow the rule might be useful as a guide in an abstract sense, but to strictly adhere to it in attempting to discover truth is not wise, as truth very possibly could be extremely complicated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are three possible explanations as to why we consider murder to be bad:
1. It is bad because morality is a social construct, and our society says it's bad.
2. It is bad because God says it's bad.
3. It "just is," independent of any edict, human or otherwise. This explanation includes the idea that this is an objective principle that can be derived rationally, without recourse to human or divine fiat.</p>
<p>Although I believe a good case can be made for (1), I will not discuss it here. My point is that the only way I can be bound to this principle is (3); otherwise, it is arbitrary, and therefore illegitimate. If you want murder to be bad universally, not only is God's intervention unnecessary, it is contradictory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the quest for truth is only a pragmatism, and the underlying skepticism remains a possibility, then I would that think that still nothing matters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't matter if, and only if, the underlying skepticism is true. If truth can be discovered by empiricism (the only hope we have), then it is certainly not trivial. If you disagree, I have some cyanide pills in my basement. j/k</p>
<p>
[quote]
It saddens me that you would limit the reaches of your thought deliberately so. Can science really explain, love for example? Even if you map out the exact brain processes, even if you can emulate it, is that all that it is? It seems that there has to be something more, because then our existence really is meaningless. I think that even the simplest individual sees things that science cannot, and science alone cannot account for art, for example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You distort the meaning of my statement. I used the term "know" in the strictest epistemological sense, as in "to possess an objective truth." Remember that science consists of both observation and inference; we may observe love and conclude that it exists, and we may also use the scientific method to attempt to explain its existence. If it is impossible to explain it in naturalistic terms (a BIG if), then the truth will evade us forever. Similarly, aesthetics (art) are inherently subjective (as evidenced by the divergence of people's tastes), so there is no objective truth to be discovered about what makes good art, only individual preferences and opinions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You see, as I have actually demonstrated (unlike what you prematurely conclude), you have to understand the Bible to understand it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would certainly hope so. And I'm pretty sure I do.</p>
<p>"Tautology n. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow." -Dictionary.com</p>
<p>Basically, a redundancy. Another example: God is moral, since morality is what God says it is. Methinks I do know what it means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Youre right, the fact that the worlds waters are undrinkable, the rising threat of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, the thick smog surrounding every major city and responsible for the lung disease and deaths of untold babies, children and the elderly, etc
.all are meaningless trifles compared to the Spanish Inquisition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science is neutral until it is used. Take the most horrible consequences of scientific discovery, for example the atomic bomb. Now put that in the context of all the lives saved from nuclear medicine and all the other results of atomic theory. If anything, science is inherently positive, since it provides us, if nothing else, with truth, which I value.</p>
<p>You go on to list good Christians and bad atheists:
Your list means nothing. It speaks neither to the truth of any religion nor the consequences of religious belief. I could just as soon come up with an extensive list of bad people who were Christians and good people who were atheists. Additionally, your implicit conclusion is laughable. The fact that Shakespeare was a Chrisitan has nothing to do with his literary prowess. I could just as easily say that I'm good at math because I have a mole on my back. Correlation does not equal causation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Darwin gave more logic and reasoning to the course and origin of humans than anyone.</p>
<p>More than Aristotle, Socartes, Plato, Kant, Descartes, Liebnitz?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Theory of Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Darwin launched a new era in science. These philosophers have all done a lot for the cause of truth, but with respect to human origins, Darwin is by far the dominant figure in gistory, seeing as how he discovered the science of origins, otherwise known as evolution.</p>
<p>Fountain Siren, </p>
<p>You really are quite pathetic. In addition to your examples of true leaders benefited by so called organized religion, you list:</p>
<p>
[quote]
19. Galileo
20. Copernicus
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you know that Galileo was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life because of his claims on astronomy based by scientific and NOT Christian views. He was punished by the Christians and yet you're telling me that it is Christianity that has helped spawn leaders like Galileo when in fact, Galileo was a rebel to the Church? </p>
<p>If anything, Christianity is what brought troubles to Galileo. Science is what told him the truth; it is what told us all the truth about astronomy. Not the pope and his priests who claimed that divine beings moved the planets. They just locked him up for the rest of his life for his life for finding the truth. You really insult his intelligence by bringing up his name in favor of Christianity. </p>
<p>BTW, using Galileo as an example attack my support of science over religion is by far the most BS argument I have EVER heard. My 1 year old nephew can put up a better argument than that. </p>
<p>Also, the hyperlinks you listed next to Newton and Faraday are not working.</p>
<p>EH_2005</p>
<p>One of these things is not like the other, la, la, lala can you guess which one:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>"ONLY the third world countries suffer from bad water, lung disease
[emphasis added for veracity]</p></li>
<li><p>I think that it's a fair statement to say that bad water, etc... IS MORE OF AN ISSUE and a realistic issue in third world countries as opposed to the more developed countries. [emphasis added for truth]</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Not a Realistic issue anywhere but in the third world countries: please, tap a few of the links I posted. It is a very realistic issue. </p>
<p>But that really isnt the point, is it. The point is that there is the fact of the 16th cent Inquisition (which you used to discredit a tradition of faith that reaches back thousands of years) and the 20th cent fact of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pots atrocities, amongst many others (which I used to show the evil possibilities inherent to those who believe they answer to know one but themselves). All these 20th cent atrocities were committed as violently anti-religious progressives; Include Hitlers atrocities against the Jews and organized religion throughout Europe and you have the trilogy of modern evil: Europe all the way across the continent through to Asia and beyond. </p>
<p>I have no opinion of science as a moral agent; I was referring to secular atheists as moral agents. Ill take those who believe there is something greater than themselves over those who believe they answer only to themselves any-day I would think millions of dead victims of Hitler, Stalin and Mao might feel the same way I do.</p>
<p>Excellent detective work on my typo, I wont be spending the time on these weighty matters while reading your posts so let your fingers fly.</p>
<p>To bad your detective skills failed you when you were looking over my list; these are all scientists and mathematicians briefly listed (to my knowledge none of them wrote poemsso relax):</p>
<ol>
<li>Newton </li>
<li>Locke</li>
<li>Pascal</li>
<li>Descartes</li>
<li>Michael Faraday </li>
<li>Galileo </li>
<li>Copernicus</li>
<li>Guttenberg (famous for the printing press)</li>
<li>Kepler</li>
<li>Da Vinci</li>
<li>Pasteur</li>
</ol>