Not to mention the Bible actually says nothing against rape per se, only that you get to own the girl you rape (more or less) after you pay off the father.
What makes things "wrong" is the negative effect an act has on ones life. Not the act itself. Rape is wrong because it's a violation of ones own personal body when not invited and consensual. Murder is wrong on the same bases. Child molestation is wrong because the child is not maturely cognitively adept to even comprehend what is going on. It's the negative effect it has on someone beyond there own control or permission. Much like when your God "created" me without me asking to be created.
I am moral in certain aspects only because I am squeemish in those areas.
Example. I can't even bring myself to put a worm on a hook nor stand the sight of blood thus I could never bring myslef to beat up on anyone let alone commit murder AND that has nothing to do with religion.
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
@WILLTHEWGMAN Two things. 1) The fundamental position of science is "we don't know". Science also takes the view that a theory can never be proved, only disproved. Evidence may point to a theory being correct, but it takes one experiment to blow the doors open again. 2) A definition of dogmatic: "based on assumption rather than empirical observation". Science *is* empirical. Theories are based in part on assumptions but these assumptions and theories are continually tested. See point 1.
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." ~Richard Dawkins
When did these theories become fact, is this statement dogmatic? Something from nothing a "fact", really??? This is the dogma I am referring to, what is the empirical data to make any of these claim "facts"? I can list thousands more of these as well!!!
@WILLTHEWGMAN There is considerable evidence to support the big bang theory. Approximately 80 years worth of evidence. The "universe from nothing" is a reference to that. It is a staggering fact but currently supported. Life coming from nothing: in the last 24 months I have heard of a staggering series of experiments that demonstrate how the precursors to living cells have been created in the lab out of nothing but simply molecules. "Something from nothing" sounds crazy, but is possibly real.
There is no "fact" in science that the "big bang" came from "nothing". Science has no idea about what was a ten millionth of a second before the big bang theory therefore to conclude as "fact" that "literally nothing" was the cause of the big bang is totally baseless! "Possibly real" and "fact" are not far from the same. Again, statements like this are based solely on dogmatic beliefs and not scientific bases on empirical observation. Not sure why you just can't admit this???
@WILLTHEWGMAN You make a good point regarding what happened before the big bang. A point I wanted to make and expand upon but the restrictive character limit precludes rational intellectual discourse on subjects as complex and nuanced as science and physics. As for what happened before the big bang, see point 1 of my first comment: we don't know what happened before big bang and physics admits that. You also have to remember that Dawkins is a special kind of individual and is not a physicist.
Dawkins is a an evolutionary biologist that states the theory of "speciation" is a fact. He also claims that biological determinism is fact, meaning that there is no such thing in human free-will and that all that humans are is merely evolved biochemistry programmed to react to it's external environment with no agent of free-will. He claims science as tool for all of these believed self-claimed facts. This is the dogmatic modern self-described science I refer to.
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
@DeathToTheIlluminati if you did whatever you felt like there would still be societal laws that would limit your actions. There is also something astoundingly sad about thinking your entire moral/value system is ultimately God. Hypothetically, If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow would you really think it'd be okay to murder and rape?
@lukeyboy5 - spot on. if Morality was absolute and given to us by a divine being, then why has morality evolved through time? Why are our values now so different from 50 years ago? Why is morality relative geopolitically, societally?
Morality is most definitely a social construction, that is rooted in the basis of 'treat others how you would like to be treated'. It has been redefined, argued, and refined throughout time and will continue to do so.
Also, are you seriously saying that we have to be eyewitnesses to an event in order to know anything about it (such as canyon formation)? I'm just wondering how you justify the rejection of scientific claims (since scientists weren't there to see the event take place in real time) with your acceptance of the resurrection without you having been there to see it yourself? You might be a great candidate for a high up position in a 1984-like totalitarian regime. You've got doublethink mastered.
@gab4140 All your questions about biology and geology can be answered by a middle school science text book. You want to know how we know that 99% of biologists believe evolution is a scientific fact? Because the scientific discipline of Biology is based on the theory of evolution. Being a creationist biologist is like being an atheist priest; it takes some serious cognitive dissonance. Props to lukeboy for his unfortunately futile attempts to impart upon you some scientific knowledge.
You could then come around and say "But mankind was already born with the morals made by God. They are innate". So we had the morals in us all along? Why the whole moses on the mountain scene? To make us remember in case we had somehow forgotten? Could there possibly be any lesser effective way of reminding us than giving a stone tablet to this leader of a hunted, illiterate people in the middle of nowhere in the desert?
How can you even forget something innate unless intentional supressed?
Hitchens makes a point. Don't come here and tell us that mankind didn't know any difference from either killing or not killing before the commandments were brought to us. That is beyond stupid to think. It's perfectly obvious from ancient writings that people were capable of feeling guilt, fear, law from lawlessness well before moses. So what did Moses exacly achieve on that mountain? It's a vital story in the whole 'god made morals'-business so it needs explanation.
Can morality exist without God? Morality is a value systemthat existed in many forms without the concept or belief in the Abrahamic God, so the answer is yes.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Yes, except that religious people will argue that since god created everything it created morals long before humans were around, and implemented them in humans. god only managed to officially tell the humans later on. Obviously they would have never made it to some mountain without some kind of morals or laws. They would just be cavemen slaying each other.
The 'clever' religious folks will always argue with you to the first cause pretty quickly, and dump everything on that.
A few comments below me, "what if a creator made us and placed us in a concept of right and wrong"? Well, this would refute the free will subjection by god wouldn't it? If we were given free will, then we weren't placed or instilled with any notions of what to do or what not to do regarding morality. We have free decision over everything, free will. If morality is objective in the sense of the bible, why is it we refrain from rape although its not listed in the commandments.
to use the analogy, the king did not create the subjects or the world in which they live. The creator however, is the source of everything, including the purpose for life. That's the difference in my view. what do you think?
I believe that Dostoyevsky was right on the mark. Most athiests don't agree with him though, why? I think it's because no one wants to live life as a nihilist so they pretend that there is some sort of meaning to life. we are very powerful creatures indeed, we can ascribe meaning to anything we want. however ultimately, the grand naturalistic scheme is void of objective meaning.
@streetlightcollusion Why can't we give our own individual life meaning ourselves? This of course doesn't mean that life as as whole has a purpose and I see no reason why it should.
@Serpent0fEden That's exactly what I would reason if I were an athiest. That we have to make the meaning up ourselves. but what about when contradictions of opinions arise? What if i believed that i could do whatever i liked because thats how i make up my life meaning...we would have to accept all kinds of behavior, rape, murder etc. if all the individual is doing is following their own sets of standards. neither moral opinion would be more right.. just different. What do you think?
@streetlightcollusion You should be free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't impact of the freedoms of others. What you are talking about is morality, not purpose.
@Serpent0fEden Yeah I am mixing the two up. Sorry, it comes from only being able to reply in these short comment boxes. It seems to me that morals, like meaning are subjective if naturalism is true?
@streetlightcollusion What makes the creator's morality objective? Surely such a beings' morality is just as subjective; if a king created laws determining right and wrong then how would that be different from your God answer?
Hitchens DOES address those who make the unsophisticated claim that we need God to BE moral.
However, the much better argument is the one Dr. Craig poses; and that is that moral values cannot be objective if God does not exist; and yet we all (including Hitchens) go on assuming that moral values ARE objective...that certain moral principles CAN and SHOULD be PREscribed.
When confronted with THIS argument, Hitchen's does his level best to ignore and misrepresent it.
Ok, i wasnt trying to say anything complicated, just that Hitchens is using oversimplified argument, a straw man, which he then points out as absurd, which it is, therby proving nothing other than his unwillingness to engage in the debate seriously.
The real claim is that without god as a moral touchstone we cant have a universal morality. It is not that without a god we should, or would, go out and start behaving an ways which clearly cause suffering. Honestly, i`d like to hear it elaborated on for my own education but it is clear enough that there is some subtulty there and christopher is blythly ignoring it for his own reasons.
I would agree with the first part in terms of the real claim. Unfortunately this claim isn't backed up with anything substantial in terms of evidence. So how does the argument proceed when there is no real argument for the claim. The claim is nothing more than a weak, if not failed, assertion that there is in fact a god.
Have you seen the Al Sharpton clips? I don't know who can take Al Sharpton seriously, but he sure makes a few questionable statements. "Lets decide every 4 years what's moral, well most republicans do." I'll leave the republicans aside for they have nothing to do with this, and I'll say that he asserts the claim against himself that we decide our morals collectively over time as a learning process and not a dictate from the supernatural. He fails to realize that democrats do the same.
@calvinjones - I actually don't think there is a universal morality. It's relative, and changes throughout time. Think of cannibalism as a part of life for societies in extreme environments, who considered the body as a last gift from the dead. Think of slavery, or the rights of women or races throughout history. There is an evolution of morals, not an absolute. So... I think I agree with Jwiddle?
@lukeyboy5 how do you then decide if something is right or wrong. Is it possible in your view to say that something is certainly wrong. If so then isnt this an absolute, and if not then why do we punish certain activities. Is it simply because the majority of people "seem" to agree about a certain action as being right. I so can you tell somebody who is from a different society which may have a different agreement that anything they do is wrong. After all his society said its permissible.
@gab4140 I don't know that it is possible, Gab, to say something is definitely wrong. Frankly in the long term I don't think that any human action will matter in a moral sense- except of course to other humans. However, human societies have evolved with certain checks and balances such as punishment of murder- any society that promoted or was indifferent to the killing of its own members would probably not last very long, and so its ideologies wouldn't either.
@gab4140 As to whether we can tell someone they are wrong although their "society" says they are in the moral clear- that seems like a task particularly suited to a body like the united nations. A consensus from many peoples and nations may indeed be the best guideline for morality that we can get.
@lukeyboy5 I'm glad that you think it "seems a task " for the united nations. But in your worldview why should they be the ones deciding which society is right or wrong. Doesnt this unditermine the whole idea of a consensus of society to decide morality. The basick arguement I'm proposing is in your worldview on what justification do you assume that any certain individual or group of individuals gets to decide what is moral or not.
@lukeyboy5 I'm glad that you think it "seems a task " for the united nations. But in your worldview why should they be the ones deciding which society is right or wrong. Doesnt this unditermine the whole idea of a consensus of society to decide morality. The basick arguement I'm proposing is in your worldview on what justification do you assume that any certain individual or group of individuals gets to decide what is moral or not.
@gab4140 Every single sovereign state except the Vatican is a member of the United Nations. Is there a single other body of power with such membership, and so such a wide sampling of different peoples (societies)? The fact that this is a voting body is why I suggested that the consensus of the UN might be a fairly accurate representation of the morals of humanity on a whole. However, as far as I know the UN does not proscribe morals. My point was not that they should be able to impose (cont)
@gab4140 a set of rules which every person should agree with morally, but that they would be able to determine what laws would be fair to the largest possible majority.
@lukeyboy5 I see your point. However in order to justify something you must do just that, justify it. If morality is not absolute then how do we determine what it is. Is it a consensus of a certain society? If so then you still have the problem between societies. Is it a consensus of all people. If you believe this is the case then why should your idea be the right one when it comes to morality. By the way I am not advocating simply a absolute morality but a Christian absolute morality.
@gab4140 Yes I'd gathered that you were Christian, Gab.First, all I can say about my own morality is that it is a product of the environment I grew up in. It is a set of rules that tend to let me be a productive member of society, and because I was raised in the western world, which is strongly influenced by christianity, I share some values with Christianity. However, I do not think that there in fact IS an absolute Christian morality, because morals held by Christians have changed over (cont)
@lukeyboy5 If your morality is simply a product of your environment then you are basically admiting that you have no justification for why someone can be punished for anything. After all you have no reason to believe that everyone grew up in the same environment. This is my point. Those who advocate evolution or any other such worldview are being inconsistant within there worldview. They are being irrational because they say there are no absolute morals and yet they say that someone is wrong!
@gab4140 (cont) the years. I can hardly think that you would personally condone, for example, the owning of slaves, or the subjugation of women by men. Yet these are things described, permitted, and even regulated by rules of the Bible. So when you speak of a "Christian absolute morality," I confess I am unsure of what you mean.
@lukeyboy5 There is a difference between a worldview and peoples actions who claim to believe in that worldview. Simply because Christians over the years change there stance doesnt mean that the Bible changed. Christians can be irrational too. The owning of slaves in the Bible first of all is not necessarily like owning slave in the 1700s. It is more of a giving up of oneself to another in order to survive.The Bible as a whole.(both testiments) clears up all of these misunderstandings.
@lukeyboy5 coninued. In 1 Corinthians the Bible also make it clear that both spouses are to submit to each other. It is not subjugating women. Morality is only one reason that I believe that evolution is not rational. There are others. For instance how can evolution consistantly justify laws of logic, or uniformity in nature. I know that this is a different subject but it is very important to the concept of worldviews. One must be right. And it cannot be inconsistant or arbitrary otherwise there
@lukeyboy5 would be no reason to debate this important issue. Ultimately unless evolution can not justify absolute morality which you have admitted( I think) and I argue that anything less is irrational in your worldview because it takes away your ability to justify punishing anyone. It becomes a matter of opinion and that will lead to absurd results
@gab4140 The most important thing to address here is the fact that you have confused evolution with philosophy. Evolution is not a philosophical postulation, it is a word which describes change throughout time (in this case I assume you mean change in organisms). It is not a worldview, any more than gravity is a worldview.
@lukeyboy5 If you are saying that evolution simply means change over time then I agree with you,because I also believe that animals change but within their kinds. But evolution is not simply change over time. It is the idea that all life formed from a single celled organism. In order to believe this you must assume several things, preconditions if you will. You must assume that your senses are basically reliable, that the universe always has the same "laws", and that the universe has uniformity
@gab4140 Next, you have in fact made my point- the bible has not changed. What have changed are the attitudes and moral sensibilities of adherents to the bible. A slave was still a slave, still could be sold as a slave, could be beaten, and even taken in battle. If the Bible was truly moral then the 10 commandments would've simply outlawed slavery, along with child abuse etc. I don't know what you mean about Corinthians equalizing the sexes, either- First Corinthians 11:3 is clear there. (cont)
@lukeyboy5 continued. I would challenge you idea that evolution is not a worldview. Everyone has a worldview. It is your set of presupositions which will influence how you view the evidence.
Finally, you cannot simply claim that anything less than absolute morality is equal to no morality. It does not follow. For proof you need simply look to non-christian cultures and realize that they do not simply degenerate, or have “absurd results." Most important however is that you realize that a “worldview” that does not include an absolute morality does not base its morals somehow on evolution. The issue is philosophical not naturalistic.
@lukeyboy5 My arguement is not that people with certain worldviews will behave in a certain way; "absurdly" but it is that if they act according to their worldview "evolutionary worldview" they will behave absurdly. It is because they act inconsistantly that they are able to act the way they do. Evolution is generally considered naturalistic but there is also a metaphisical evolutionist(atheist). But to say that evolution does not involve philosophy is somewhat disturing because otherwise how
@lukeyboy5 continued.. would you justify your worldview. Isnt the idea of logic philosophical. You must use logic to justify what you believe. Worldview is what the debate is about not the evidence (origins debate). We all have the same evidence but come to different conclusions
@gab4140 Actually, all evolution means is change over time. It is a scientific fact that animals and plants have changed throughout the earth's history, beyond whatever their "kind" means ("kind" is an ambiguous, creationist term and undefined. It means nothing in biology). If you wish to ignore the fossil record then that is your choice but it is simply unreasonable and you can't possibly hope to get a clear picture of the natural world. Still, the origin of life is not part (cont)
@lukeyboy5 Are you talking of the word "evolution" or the theory of evolution. If it is the word then your right it does simply mean change over time. But if you are speaking of the theory of evolution as it purtains to science then it is not simply change over time. I dont think anyone will deny that everything we see changes over time. The theory of evolution is a directional process by which all living organisms evolved from a common ancesoter.
@gab4140 (cont) of evolution, but a separate study called “Abiogenesis.” Next, I understand that you are mixing up evolution with one or another atheistic philosophies, but evolution is not a worldview or philosophy. It is simply a description of what has happened and continues to happen. Think of all the many christians, muslims etc who in fact understand and accept that evolution has happened. For more on this, please check the wikipedia page detailing the “Clergy Letter Project.”
@lukeyboy5 If as I mentioned before you are speaking of the theory of evolution then it is considered a worlview because it has a few preconditions. Nobody should ignore the fossil record but it is not simply a fact speaking for itself, instead it is our worldview which will shape how we view the evidence. On the fossil record more specifically, Darwin said that in the years after his famous book it would be necessary to find many intermediate links in the record or his theory would callapse.con
@lukeyboy5 From what I have read of certain 'experts' in the fields of animal evolution is that they still dont know what any of the intermediate links are because they havent found any. I would take this to be because there are not any but a person who believes in evolution will say that they expect to find them in the next 20 years or so. I will get back to you with some specific quotes of different evolutionists in a few days.
@gab4140 You repeat and repeat that the theory of evolution is a "worldview" which defines morals in the same way that christianity is a worldview. This is simply not the case, Gab. You have gotten completely off track from the discussion regarding morals. The fact of evolution (via the fossil record) or the theory of evolution (by the process of natural selection) simply are not worldviews in the same sense. That would be like saying, as I said before, that the theory of gravity or (cont)
@lukeyboy5 I was discussing philosophy with a friend in the same subject 'is evolution' a woldview. I have accidentally mixed up the necessary worldview with the theory itself. So your right evolution in itself is not a worldview. Now looking back I was actually using the term evolutionary worldview to be more like atheism or naturalism or empercism which are all worldviews. So the arguement would really be that none of these worldviews can account for morality or laws of logic ect... But con
@lukeyboy5 continued. ... But I would say that evolution necessarily requires one of these worldviews or a similar one in order to be consistent with the theory.
@gab4140 the observed fact that the planets obey what we call the laws of gravity are worldviews. This is incorrect. If you do wish to discuss evolution, that is fine, but you must do so with the knowledge that A) it is not a worldview and B) you are discussing a scientific theory, aka one which has been repeatedly tested, (hundreds and hundreds of times, and not once been falsified. Regarding Darwin's statement about the fossil record- yes, in his time there was a paucity of fossils. (cont)
@lukeyboy5 It would be more clear to discuss the worldviews that are consistant with the evolutionary theory. Now for some quotes Storrs Olson from the smithsonian institution wrote an open letter to national geographic regarding bird evolution. Try googling it. It seams clear that first not all evolutionists agree with the "evidence" or mabe the evidence isnt clear. The author is a very prominent scientist and he should be listened to.
@gab4140 I'm glad you understand the distinction. However, you again make the claim that atheism or naturalism cannot provide morals, and you do not substantiate- you are just stating your opinion without explaining it. Do you get what I mean? You are just making blanket claims and not actually telling me WHY they cannot give morals or “laws of logic”(?). As for Olson- did you actually read his letter? In no way is he disagreeing with evolution. (cont)
@lukeyboy5 Basically with regards to why atheism or naturalism cannot acount for morality, A person must in both of these worldviews claim somthing other than a absolute morality. I have tried to show why it must be absolute in order to be consistant. If you would once again mention how they can explain or justify morality. or laws of logic or uniformity in nature from any worldview other than the Christian worldview then I can respond specifically.
@gab4140 He was (correctly) complaining about the lack of peer review for an article published in Nature magazine regarding a FALSE fossil. Note that he does not disparage evolution or natural selection. No evolutions needs to “agree with the evidence”- that is not something you do. The evidence is simply there. If you ignore it, you can ignore evolution. If you actually look at it, you cannot.
@lukeyboy5 If the evidence is simply there then why do people "many scientists" disagree with what the evidence is "saying". Are you saying that evolution is what the evidence is saying. For instance the grand canyon is used by naturalists to show that the earth is millions of years old. But creationists say that this shows that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood. You are saying that the former but I dont see that the evidence is necessarily only interpreted one way. continued
@lukeyboy5 Creationists say that the fact that there are millions of marine fossils burried high in the mountains which seem to be buried by water, shows that there was a flood and the earth is young. But naturlists will insist that this is not the case. I'm dont seem to understand how the evidence is only looked at one way.
@gab4140 Seriously Gab, you cannot make the argument "he is a prominent scientist and he should be listened to" and then go ahead and NOT follow your own advice regarding what amounts to all biologists. There is no one (save perhaps some ID-ers) actually working in biology today who does not recognize evolution as a fact, and natural selection as its main driving force. Keep an open mind, and pick up a book instead of scripture. You may find it refreshingly cogent.
@lukeyboy5 An evolutionist has a worldview which is generallly naturalism or some similar worldview. It says that natural selection is the main force behind evolution. Similarities between animals show a comon ancester according to the theory. But natural selection is non directional so how could that drive evolution which is directional. As a creationist I would say that the fact that fossils of certain animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and fully formed with no ancesters would ...
@gab4140 Gab- what “Many scientists” disagree with evolution? 99% of biologists working in the field today do NOT disagree with evolution. As for a flood- are you serious? If you actually take the time to read about it (again, the book “Evolution” by Prothero covers this very well) you would at least see the facts. Do you know anything about plate tectonics? Do you know how long it takes for a canyon to be formed? From what you’re saying, I have to suppose you don’t. (cont)
@lukeyboy5 Unless you have actually either directly or indirectly interviewed every biologist today how can you say that 99 percent do not disagree with evolution. You ask me if I know how long it takes for a canyon to form. Well no because as far as I know no one living today has been around long enough to see the grand canyon form. Why do you assume that the way it forms is the same way it forms today ie uniformity in nature. In your worldview can you account or justify uniformity.con
@lukeyboy5 I do not assume that the grand canyon was formed entirely by the same processess and at the same rates which we see today. Why because according to my worldview there was a time, during the flood, which conditions would have been very different and so the rates would also have been different. uniformitarianism is what you seem to be advocating. That present conditions and rates have always been the same. But how do you justify it in your worldview
@gab4140 I’m sorry, Gab, but I can’t have an actual conversation with you- you are not bringing anything to the table, you are just spouting recycled and outdated (and wrong) creationist rhetoric which you’ve been conditioned to repeat. This is ok, if you’re happy. But if you actually want to learn, you need to take some time and actually look into, for example geology and biology.
@lukeyboy5 Unless you can answer the questions concerning how you justify uniformity or uniformitarianism in your worldview then I must assume that you are being arbitrary. This is not acceptable. But please enlighten me as to how these two things are justified in your worldview or how you "know" that it takes a long time to form a canyon. Anything besides this is simply a red herring and is irrelevent to the subjece. Also a minor point even if most scientist accept evolution does not mean its
@gab4140 Please understand that this means that he, along with Wallace, basically came up with the idea of natural selection (because evolution of animals throughout the fossil record had already been well documented by creationists called “natural theologians”) by looking at only EXTANT animals. If you wish to see intermediate fossils, you need only do one thing; actually look into it, rather than just buying the creationist rhetoric. (cont)
@gab4140 They are in our natural history museums, in books (I strongly recommend “Evolution” by Donald Prothero, as it has many examples as well as diagrams and pictures of the fossils themselves) or you could even do a quick google search for such names as Australopithecus afarensis or tiktaalik roseae. As for you finding quotes, feel free but frankly I prefer to look at actual evidence.
If so, I implore you to watch some debates and you'll note statements in accordance with, "you get your morals from god and without god you would have no morals."
I'm curious to hear the argument for the informal logical fallacy that Christopher Hitchens has committed. Blurting out "straw man alert" is about the equivalent of cheering or pouting at a sports event and leaves me with just as much satisfaction as a sports event, none. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment though.
@jwiddle He is attacking the Idea that people are moral because God gave us the 10 commandments at Mount Sinai, and that is not what Christians mean when they say, "you get your morals from god and without god you would have no morals." What we mean by this is that we have a conscience and an understanding of morality because we were created that way by God. If we did not have this Objective Moral Law on our hearts there is no reason for us to think that certain things like rape are wrong.
Not to mention the Bible actually says nothing against rape per se, only that you get to own the girl you rape (more or less) after you pay off the father.
cablepanos 3 months ago
Religious people would rape their own mom if there was no God?
ShahnamPersia 4 months ago
Woah. That was a juicy 2 mins and 27. *claps*
SirDruhHu 4 months ago
being good for hope of an eternal reward or for fear of eternal punishment is not morality. Doing good for its own sake IS morality.
xn117 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What makes things "wrong" is the negative effect an act has on ones life. Not the act itself. Rape is wrong because it's a violation of ones own personal body when not invited and consensual. Murder is wrong on the same bases. Child molestation is wrong because the child is not maturely cognitively adept to even comprehend what is going on. It's the negative effect it has on someone beyond there own control or permission. Much like when your God "created" me without me asking to be created.
mjfraser04 5 months ago
I am moral in certain aspects only because I am squeemish in those areas.
Example. I can't even bring myself to put a worm on a hook nor stand the sight of blood thus I could never bring myslef to beat up on anyone let alone commit murder AND that has nothing to do with religion.
dirtydonki 5 months ago
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Two things. 1) The fundamental position of science is "we don't know". Science also takes the view that a theory can never be proved, only disproved. Evidence may point to a theory being correct, but it takes one experiment to blow the doors open again. 2) A definition of dogmatic: "based on assumption rather than empirical observation". Science *is* empirical. Theories are based in part on assumptions but these assumptions and theories are continually tested. See point 1.
phrdao 1 month ago
@phrdao
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." ~Richard Dawkins
When did these theories become fact, is this statement dogmatic? Something from nothing a "fact", really??? This is the dogma I am referring to, what is the empirical data to make any of these claim "facts"? I can list thousands more of these as well!!!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 month ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN There is considerable evidence to support the big bang theory. Approximately 80 years worth of evidence. The "universe from nothing" is a reference to that. It is a staggering fact but currently supported. Life coming from nothing: in the last 24 months I have heard of a staggering series of experiments that demonstrate how the precursors to living cells have been created in the lab out of nothing but simply molecules. "Something from nothing" sounds crazy, but is possibly real.
phrdao 1 month ago
@phrdao
There is no "fact" in science that the "big bang" came from "nothing". Science has no idea about what was a ten millionth of a second before the big bang theory therefore to conclude as "fact" that "literally nothing" was the cause of the big bang is totally baseless! "Possibly real" and "fact" are not far from the same. Again, statements like this are based solely on dogmatic beliefs and not scientific bases on empirical observation. Not sure why you just can't admit this???
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 month ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN You make a good point regarding what happened before the big bang. A point I wanted to make and expand upon but the restrictive character limit precludes rational intellectual discourse on subjects as complex and nuanced as science and physics. As for what happened before the big bang, see point 1 of my first comment: we don't know what happened before big bang and physics admits that. You also have to remember that Dawkins is a special kind of individual and is not a physicist.
phrdao 1 month ago
@phrdao
Dawkins is a an evolutionary biologist that states the theory of "speciation" is a fact. He also claims that biological determinism is fact, meaning that there is no such thing in human free-will and that all that humans are is merely evolved biochemistry programmed to react to it's external environment with no agent of free-will. He claims science as tool for all of these believed self-claimed facts. This is the dogmatic modern self-described science I refer to.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 month ago
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
I get my morality from empathy and sympathy.
lynnguist 6 months ago
@DeathToTheIlluminati if you did whatever you felt like there would still be societal laws that would limit your actions. There is also something astoundingly sad about thinking your entire moral/value system is ultimately God. Hypothetically, If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow would you really think it'd be okay to murder and rape?
carrotxdawg 7 months ago
@lukeyboy5 - spot on. if Morality was absolute and given to us by a divine being, then why has morality evolved through time? Why are our values now so different from 50 years ago? Why is morality relative geopolitically, societally?
Morality is most definitely a social construction, that is rooted in the basis of 'treat others how you would like to be treated'. It has been redefined, argued, and refined throughout time and will continue to do so.
carrotxdawg 7 months ago
Also, are you seriously saying that we have to be eyewitnesses to an event in order to know anything about it (such as canyon formation)? I'm just wondering how you justify the rejection of scientific claims (since scientists weren't there to see the event take place in real time) with your acceptance of the resurrection without you having been there to see it yourself? You might be a great candidate for a high up position in a 1984-like totalitarian regime. You've got doublethink mastered.
KillerXCable 8 months ago
@gab4140 All your questions about biology and geology can be answered by a middle school science text book. You want to know how we know that 99% of biologists believe evolution is a scientific fact? Because the scientific discipline of Biology is based on the theory of evolution. Being a creationist biologist is like being an atheist priest; it takes some serious cognitive dissonance. Props to lukeboy for his unfortunately futile attempts to impart upon you some scientific knowledge.
KillerXCable 8 months ago
If god was not real, I would do anything I feel like.
DeathToTheIlluminati 8 months ago
You could then come around and say "But mankind was already born with the morals made by God. They are innate". So we had the morals in us all along? Why the whole moses on the mountain scene? To make us remember in case we had somehow forgotten? Could there possibly be any lesser effective way of reminding us than giving a stone tablet to this leader of a hunted, illiterate people in the middle of nowhere in the desert?
How can you even forget something innate unless intentional supressed?
Devilsnightforlife 10 months ago
Hitchens makes a point. Don't come here and tell us that mankind didn't know any difference from either killing or not killing before the commandments were brought to us. That is beyond stupid to think. It's perfectly obvious from ancient writings that people were capable of feeling guilt, fear, law from lawlessness well before moses. So what did Moses exacly achieve on that mountain? It's a vital story in the whole 'god made morals'-business so it needs explanation.
continue.
Devilsnightforlife 10 months ago
I LOVE that Chris cites Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" to prove his point...
what a wonderful man, and a wonderful mind.
treid100182 11 months ago
Can morality exist without God? Morality is a value systemthat existed in many forms without the concept or belief in the Abrahamic God, so the answer is yes.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago 4
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Yes, except that religious people will argue that since god created everything it created morals long before humans were around, and implemented them in humans. god only managed to officially tell the humans later on. Obviously they would have never made it to some mountain without some kind of morals or laws. They would just be cavemen slaying each other.
The 'clever' religious folks will always argue with you to the first cause pretty quickly, and dump everything on that.
jwiddle 1 year ago 2
A few comments below me, "what if a creator made us and placed us in a concept of right and wrong"? Well, this would refute the free will subjection by god wouldn't it? If we were given free will, then we weren't placed or instilled with any notions of what to do or what not to do regarding morality. We have free decision over everything, free will. If morality is objective in the sense of the bible, why is it we refrain from rape although its not listed in the commandments.
strikenetter 1 year ago
to use the analogy, the king did not create the subjects or the world in which they live. The creator however, is the source of everything, including the purpose for life. That's the difference in my view. what do you think?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
I believe that Dostoyevsky was right on the mark. Most athiests don't agree with him though, why? I think it's because no one wants to live life as a nihilist so they pretend that there is some sort of meaning to life. we are very powerful creatures indeed, we can ascribe meaning to anything we want. however ultimately, the grand naturalistic scheme is void of objective meaning.
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion Why can't we give our own individual life meaning ourselves? This of course doesn't mean that life as as whole has a purpose and I see no reason why it should.
Serpent0fEden 1 year ago
@Serpent0fEden That's exactly what I would reason if I were an athiest. That we have to make the meaning up ourselves. but what about when contradictions of opinions arise? What if i believed that i could do whatever i liked because thats how i make up my life meaning...we would have to accept all kinds of behavior, rape, murder etc. if all the individual is doing is following their own sets of standards. neither moral opinion would be more right.. just different. What do you think?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion You should be free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't impact of the freedoms of others. What you are talking about is morality, not purpose.
Serpent0fEden 1 year ago
@Serpent0fEden Yeah I am mixing the two up. Sorry, it comes from only being able to reply in these short comment boxes. It seems to me that morals, like meaning are subjective if naturalism is true?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion I don't see how naturalism is any more subjective than anything else (supernaturalism?)
Serpent0fEden 1 year ago
@Serpent0fEden what if there was a creator that made all of this and placed in us a concept of right and wrong. wouldn't that make it objective?
streetlightcollusion 1 year ago
@streetlightcollusion What makes the creator's morality objective? Surely such a beings' morality is just as subjective; if a king created laws determining right and wrong then how would that be different from your God answer?
Serpent0fEden 1 year ago
Hitchens DOES address those who make the unsophisticated claim that we need God to BE moral.
However, the much better argument is the one Dr. Craig poses; and that is that moral values cannot be objective if God does not exist; and yet we all (including Hitchens) go on assuming that moral values ARE objective...that certain moral principles CAN and SHOULD be PREscribed.
When confronted with THIS argument, Hitchen's does his level best to ignore and misrepresent it.
MissingChurchill 2 years ago
Ok, i wasnt trying to say anything complicated, just that Hitchens is using oversimplified argument, a straw man, which he then points out as absurd, which it is, therby proving nothing other than his unwillingness to engage in the debate seriously.
calvinjones 3 years ago
The real claim is that without god as a moral touchstone we cant have a universal morality. It is not that without a god we should, or would, go out and start behaving an ways which clearly cause suffering. Honestly, i`d like to hear it elaborated on for my own education but it is clear enough that there is some subtulty there and christopher is blythly ignoring it for his own reasons.
calvinjones 3 years ago
I would agree with the first part in terms of the real claim. Unfortunately this claim isn't backed up with anything substantial in terms of evidence. So how does the argument proceed when there is no real argument for the claim. The claim is nothing more than a weak, if not failed, assertion that there is in fact a god.
jwiddle 3 years ago
Sorry, this confuses me, but just incase you think that i`m religious, that isnt the case. I think that it is very unlikely that there is a god.
calvinjones 3 years ago
Have you seen the Al Sharpton clips? I don't know who can take Al Sharpton seriously, but he sure makes a few questionable statements. "Lets decide every 4 years what's moral, well most republicans do." I'll leave the republicans aside for they have nothing to do with this, and I'll say that he asserts the claim against himself that we decide our morals collectively over time as a learning process and not a dictate from the supernatural. He fails to realize that democrats do the same.
jwiddle 3 years ago
@calvinjones - I actually don't think there is a universal morality. It's relative, and changes throughout time. Think of cannibalism as a part of life for societies in extreme environments, who considered the body as a last gift from the dead. Think of slavery, or the rights of women or races throughout history. There is an evolution of morals, not an absolute. So... I think I agree with Jwiddle?
lukeyboy5 1 year ago 4
@lukeyboy5 how do you then decide if something is right or wrong. Is it possible in your view to say that something is certainly wrong. If so then isnt this an absolute, and if not then why do we punish certain activities. Is it simply because the majority of people "seem" to agree about a certain action as being right. I so can you tell somebody who is from a different society which may have a different agreement that anything they do is wrong. After all his society said its permissible.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 I don't know that it is possible, Gab, to say something is definitely wrong. Frankly in the long term I don't think that any human action will matter in a moral sense- except of course to other humans. However, human societies have evolved with certain checks and balances such as punishment of murder- any society that promoted or was indifferent to the killing of its own members would probably not last very long, and so its ideologies wouldn't either.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@gab4140 As to whether we can tell someone they are wrong although their "society" says they are in the moral clear- that seems like a task particularly suited to a body like the united nations. A consensus from many peoples and nations may indeed be the best guideline for morality that we can get.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 I'm glad that you think it "seems a task " for the united nations. But in your worldview why should they be the ones deciding which society is right or wrong. Doesnt this unditermine the whole idea of a consensus of society to decide morality. The basick arguement I'm proposing is in your worldview on what justification do you assume that any certain individual or group of individuals gets to decide what is moral or not.
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 I'm glad that you think it "seems a task " for the united nations. But in your worldview why should they be the ones deciding which society is right or wrong. Doesnt this unditermine the whole idea of a consensus of society to decide morality. The basick arguement I'm proposing is in your worldview on what justification do you assume that any certain individual or group of individuals gets to decide what is moral or not.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Every single sovereign state except the Vatican is a member of the United Nations. Is there a single other body of power with such membership, and so such a wide sampling of different peoples (societies)? The fact that this is a voting body is why I suggested that the consensus of the UN might be a fairly accurate representation of the morals of humanity on a whole. However, as far as I know the UN does not proscribe morals. My point was not that they should be able to impose (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@gab4140 a set of rules which every person should agree with morally, but that they would be able to determine what laws would be fair to the largest possible majority.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 I see your point. However in order to justify something you must do just that, justify it. If morality is not absolute then how do we determine what it is. Is it a consensus of a certain society? If so then you still have the problem between societies. Is it a consensus of all people. If you believe this is the case then why should your idea be the right one when it comes to morality. By the way I am not advocating simply a absolute morality but a Christian absolute morality.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Yes I'd gathered that you were Christian, Gab.First, all I can say about my own morality is that it is a product of the environment I grew up in. It is a set of rules that tend to let me be a productive member of society, and because I was raised in the western world, which is strongly influenced by christianity, I share some values with Christianity. However, I do not think that there in fact IS an absolute Christian morality, because morals held by Christians have changed over (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 If your morality is simply a product of your environment then you are basically admiting that you have no justification for why someone can be punished for anything. After all you have no reason to believe that everyone grew up in the same environment. This is my point. Those who advocate evolution or any other such worldview are being inconsistant within there worldview. They are being irrational because they say there are no absolute morals and yet they say that someone is wrong!
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 (cont) the years. I can hardly think that you would personally condone, for example, the owning of slaves, or the subjugation of women by men. Yet these are things described, permitted, and even regulated by rules of the Bible. So when you speak of a "Christian absolute morality," I confess I am unsure of what you mean.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 There is a difference between a worldview and peoples actions who claim to believe in that worldview. Simply because Christians over the years change there stance doesnt mean that the Bible changed. Christians can be irrational too. The owning of slaves in the Bible first of all is not necessarily like owning slave in the 1700s. It is more of a giving up of oneself to another in order to survive.The Bible as a whole.(both testiments) clears up all of these misunderstandings.
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 coninued. In 1 Corinthians the Bible also make it clear that both spouses are to submit to each other. It is not subjugating women. Morality is only one reason that I believe that evolution is not rational. There are others. For instance how can evolution consistantly justify laws of logic, or uniformity in nature. I know that this is a different subject but it is very important to the concept of worldviews. One must be right. And it cannot be inconsistant or arbitrary otherwise there
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 would be no reason to debate this important issue. Ultimately unless evolution can not justify absolute morality which you have admitted( I think) and I argue that anything less is irrational in your worldview because it takes away your ability to justify punishing anyone. It becomes a matter of opinion and that will lead to absurd results
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 The most important thing to address here is the fact that you have confused evolution with philosophy. Evolution is not a philosophical postulation, it is a word which describes change throughout time (in this case I assume you mean change in organisms). It is not a worldview, any more than gravity is a worldview.
(cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 If you are saying that evolution simply means change over time then I agree with you,because I also believe that animals change but within their kinds. But evolution is not simply change over time. It is the idea that all life formed from a single celled organism. In order to believe this you must assume several things, preconditions if you will. You must assume that your senses are basically reliable, that the universe always has the same "laws", and that the universe has uniformity
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Next, you have in fact made my point- the bible has not changed. What have changed are the attitudes and moral sensibilities of adherents to the bible. A slave was still a slave, still could be sold as a slave, could be beaten, and even taken in battle. If the Bible was truly moral then the 10 commandments would've simply outlawed slavery, along with child abuse etc. I don't know what you mean about Corinthians equalizing the sexes, either- First Corinthians 11:3 is clear there. (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 continued. I would challenge you idea that evolution is not a worldview. Everyone has a worldview. It is your set of presupositions which will influence how you view the evidence.
gab4140 11 months ago
Finally, you cannot simply claim that anything less than absolute morality is equal to no morality. It does not follow. For proof you need simply look to non-christian cultures and realize that they do not simply degenerate, or have “absurd results." Most important however is that you realize that a “worldview” that does not include an absolute morality does not base its morals somehow on evolution. The issue is philosophical not naturalistic.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 My arguement is not that people with certain worldviews will behave in a certain way; "absurdly" but it is that if they act according to their worldview "evolutionary worldview" they will behave absurdly. It is because they act inconsistantly that they are able to act the way they do. Evolution is generally considered naturalistic but there is also a metaphisical evolutionist(atheist). But to say that evolution does not involve philosophy is somewhat disturing because otherwise how
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 continued.. would you justify your worldview. Isnt the idea of logic philosophical. You must use logic to justify what you believe. Worldview is what the debate is about not the evidence (origins debate). We all have the same evidence but come to different conclusions
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Actually, all evolution means is change over time. It is a scientific fact that animals and plants have changed throughout the earth's history, beyond whatever their "kind" means ("kind" is an ambiguous, creationist term and undefined. It means nothing in biology). If you wish to ignore the fossil record then that is your choice but it is simply unreasonable and you can't possibly hope to get a clear picture of the natural world. Still, the origin of life is not part (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 Are you talking of the word "evolution" or the theory of evolution. If it is the word then your right it does simply mean change over time. But if you are speaking of the theory of evolution as it purtains to science then it is not simply change over time. I dont think anyone will deny that everything we see changes over time. The theory of evolution is a directional process by which all living organisms evolved from a common ancesoter.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 (cont) of evolution, but a separate study called “Abiogenesis.” Next, I understand that you are mixing up evolution with one or another atheistic philosophies, but evolution is not a worldview or philosophy. It is simply a description of what has happened and continues to happen. Think of all the many christians, muslims etc who in fact understand and accept that evolution has happened. For more on this, please check the wikipedia page detailing the “Clergy Letter Project.”
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 If as I mentioned before you are speaking of the theory of evolution then it is considered a worlview because it has a few preconditions. Nobody should ignore the fossil record but it is not simply a fact speaking for itself, instead it is our worldview which will shape how we view the evidence. On the fossil record more specifically, Darwin said that in the years after his famous book it would be necessary to find many intermediate links in the record or his theory would callapse.con
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 From what I have read of certain 'experts' in the fields of animal evolution is that they still dont know what any of the intermediate links are because they havent found any. I would take this to be because there are not any but a person who believes in evolution will say that they expect to find them in the next 20 years or so. I will get back to you with some specific quotes of different evolutionists in a few days.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 You repeat and repeat that the theory of evolution is a "worldview" which defines morals in the same way that christianity is a worldview. This is simply not the case, Gab. You have gotten completely off track from the discussion regarding morals. The fact of evolution (via the fossil record) or the theory of evolution (by the process of natural selection) simply are not worldviews in the same sense. That would be like saying, as I said before, that the theory of gravity or (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 I was discussing philosophy with a friend in the same subject 'is evolution' a woldview. I have accidentally mixed up the necessary worldview with the theory itself. So your right evolution in itself is not a worldview. Now looking back I was actually using the term evolutionary worldview to be more like atheism or naturalism or empercism which are all worldviews. So the arguement would really be that none of these worldviews can account for morality or laws of logic ect... But con
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 continued. ... But I would say that evolution necessarily requires one of these worldviews or a similar one in order to be consistent with the theory.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 the observed fact that the planets obey what we call the laws of gravity are worldviews. This is incorrect. If you do wish to discuss evolution, that is fine, but you must do so with the knowledge that A) it is not a worldview and B) you are discussing a scientific theory, aka one which has been repeatedly tested, (hundreds and hundreds of times, and not once been falsified. Regarding Darwin's statement about the fossil record- yes, in his time there was a paucity of fossils. (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 It would be more clear to discuss the worldviews that are consistant with the evolutionary theory. Now for some quotes Storrs Olson from the smithsonian institution wrote an open letter to national geographic regarding bird evolution. Try googling it. It seams clear that first not all evolutionists agree with the "evidence" or mabe the evidence isnt clear. The author is a very prominent scientist and he should be listened to.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 I'm glad you understand the distinction. However, you again make the claim that atheism or naturalism cannot provide morals, and you do not substantiate- you are just stating your opinion without explaining it. Do you get what I mean? You are just making blanket claims and not actually telling me WHY they cannot give morals or “laws of logic”(?). As for Olson- did you actually read his letter? In no way is he disagreeing with evolution. (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 Basically with regards to why atheism or naturalism cannot acount for morality, A person must in both of these worldviews claim somthing other than a absolute morality. I have tried to show why it must be absolute in order to be consistant. If you would once again mention how they can explain or justify morality. or laws of logic or uniformity in nature from any worldview other than the Christian worldview then I can respond specifically.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 He was (correctly) complaining about the lack of peer review for an article published in Nature magazine regarding a FALSE fossil. Note that he does not disparage evolution or natural selection. No evolutions needs to “agree with the evidence”- that is not something you do. The evidence is simply there. If you ignore it, you can ignore evolution. If you actually look at it, you cannot.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 If the evidence is simply there then why do people "many scientists" disagree with what the evidence is "saying". Are you saying that evolution is what the evidence is saying. For instance the grand canyon is used by naturalists to show that the earth is millions of years old. But creationists say that this shows that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood. You are saying that the former but I dont see that the evidence is necessarily only interpreted one way. continued
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 Creationists say that the fact that there are millions of marine fossils burried high in the mountains which seem to be buried by water, shows that there was a flood and the earth is young. But naturlists will insist that this is not the case. I'm dont seem to understand how the evidence is only looked at one way.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Seriously Gab, you cannot make the argument "he is a prominent scientist and he should be listened to" and then go ahead and NOT follow your own advice regarding what amounts to all biologists. There is no one (save perhaps some ID-ers) actually working in biology today who does not recognize evolution as a fact, and natural selection as its main driving force. Keep an open mind, and pick up a book instead of scripture. You may find it refreshingly cogent.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 An evolutionist has a worldview which is generallly naturalism or some similar worldview. It says that natural selection is the main force behind evolution. Similarities between animals show a comon ancester according to the theory. But natural selection is non directional so how could that drive evolution which is directional. As a creationist I would say that the fact that fossils of certain animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and fully formed with no ancesters would ...
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Gab- what “Many scientists” disagree with evolution? 99% of biologists working in the field today do NOT disagree with evolution. As for a flood- are you serious? If you actually take the time to read about it (again, the book “Evolution” by Prothero covers this very well) you would at least see the facts. Do you know anything about plate tectonics? Do you know how long it takes for a canyon to be formed? From what you’re saying, I have to suppose you don’t. (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 Unless you have actually either directly or indirectly interviewed every biologist today how can you say that 99 percent do not disagree with evolution. You ask me if I know how long it takes for a canyon to form. Well no because as far as I know no one living today has been around long enough to see the grand canyon form. Why do you assume that the way it forms is the same way it forms today ie uniformity in nature. In your worldview can you account or justify uniformity.con
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 I do not assume that the grand canyon was formed entirely by the same processess and at the same rates which we see today. Why because according to my worldview there was a time, during the flood, which conditions would have been very different and so the rates would also have been different. uniformitarianism is what you seem to be advocating. That present conditions and rates have always been the same. But how do you justify it in your worldview
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 I’m sorry, Gab, but I can’t have an actual conversation with you- you are not bringing anything to the table, you are just spouting recycled and outdated (and wrong) creationist rhetoric which you’ve been conditioned to repeat. This is ok, if you’re happy. But if you actually want to learn, you need to take some time and actually look into, for example geology and biology.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 Unless you can answer the questions concerning how you justify uniformity or uniformitarianism in your worldview then I must assume that you are being arbitrary. This is not acceptable. But please enlighten me as to how these two things are justified in your worldview or how you "know" that it takes a long time to form a canyon. Anything besides this is simply a red herring and is irrelevent to the subjece. Also a minor point even if most scientist accept evolution does not mean its
gab4140 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 true. After all at one time the majority of scientists thought that the earth was in the center of the universe.
gab4140 11 months ago
@gab4140 Please understand that this means that he, along with Wallace, basically came up with the idea of natural selection (because evolution of animals throughout the fossil record had already been well documented by creationists called “natural theologians”) by looking at only EXTANT animals. If you wish to see intermediate fossils, you need only do one thing; actually look into it, rather than just buying the creationist rhetoric. (cont)
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@gab4140 They are in our natural history museums, in books (I strongly recommend “Evolution” by Donald Prothero, as it has many examples as well as diagrams and pictures of the fossils themselves) or you could even do a quick google search for such names as Australopithecus afarensis or tiktaalik roseae. As for you finding quotes, feel free but frankly I prefer to look at actual evidence.
lukeyboy5 11 months ago
@lukeyboy5 wow, weird
IneffableLifestyle 4 months ago
straw man alert...
calvinjones 3 years ago
That is a very interesting comment. Are you accusing Christopher Hitchens of misrepresenting his opponents?
jwiddle 3 years ago
If so, I implore you to watch some debates and you'll note statements in accordance with, "you get your morals from god and without god you would have no morals."
I'm curious to hear the argument for the informal logical fallacy that Christopher Hitchens has committed. Blurting out "straw man alert" is about the equivalent of cheering or pouting at a sports event and leaves me with just as much satisfaction as a sports event, none. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment though.
jwiddle 3 years ago 8
@jwiddle He is attacking the Idea that people are moral because God gave us the 10 commandments at Mount Sinai, and that is not what Christians mean when they say, "you get your morals from god and without god you would have no morals." What we mean by this is that we have a conscience and an understanding of morality because we were created that way by God. If we did not have this Objective Moral Law on our hearts there is no reason for us to think that certain things like rape are wrong.
SuperBoomerBrown 5 months ago