Anybody Else Used To Be A Republican? [Archive] - Page 2

Tear Down This Wall

2/14/2006, 02:43 PM

That's not what I'm advocating. I'm saying there is a difference between what is moral and what is legal.

Morality and Legality are not mutually exclusive.

We as a society of human beings take what are a system of morals, mores, customs, taboos, etc. and use them to form a rule of law. Yes most of what is illegal is immoral. But you can't enforce strictly on the basis something is considered immoral, it must be illegal.

You are almost home, Johnny Mack. If you just look at the roots of what cause certain laws to be passed, you'll be there.

In the legislative process, the people we send to Washington (based on the belief that they believe in most of the same things we do) look at an activity and decide whether it is right or wrong to let it continue unregulated.

Such legislators may come to the conclusion that some behavior is wrong and it must be banned or severely curbed, and then pass a law to do such. In making the distinction between the rightness or wrongness of such behavior, they have left their moral stamp on the matter. The most glaring examples here are those such as murder, rape, and thievery.

The legislator may even decide that something is right, but only within certain a certain context. Outside of that context, where they legislate, it is considered wrong. So, even in allowing a certain behavior, a moral issue is considered and the decision is made where to draw the line distinguishing right and wrong. The examples here are the procurement of pornography, the limit on the intake of alcohol, the prescribing of certain drugs for medical use.

Any way you slice it, the laws of a democratic society have at their roots the underlying moral bent of the electorate.

JohnnyMack

2/14/2006, 02:44 PM

What about, say an 8 year old consenting to having sex with a 40 year old she met off the net?

If both parties agree, and no one cares, than is there a victim?

Yes. It's illegal.

Next stupid question.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 02:44 PM

So Christianity isn't the source of all moral authority?No, the trinity is.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 02:45 PM

Yes. It's illegal.

Next stupid question.

Ok, so why is it illegal?

There is no victim if both parties consent, is there?

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 02:46 PM

What about, say an 8 year old consenting to having sex with a 40 year old she met off the net?

If both parties agree, and no one cares, than is there a victim?

So...sex with children is a victimless crime to you? I do not agree.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 02:47 PM

No, the trinity is.

What about all those Buddhists not killing, raping, and stealing over in Japan?

jk the sooner fan

2/14/2006, 02:48 PM

What about all those Buddhists not killing, raping, and stealing over in Japan?

how bout we keep the focus of the topic on our own society, morals and laws...

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 02:48 PM

So...sex with children is a victimless crime to you? I do not agree.

Its a crime of the highest order to me.

But I am just trying to find out if two consenting adults, one of which happens to be about 8 or so is a victimless crime of which laws were passed based on morality.

Seems like you and JM are proving my point rather well though.

JohnnyMack

2/14/2006, 02:51 PM

Its a crime of the highest order to me.

But I am just trying to find out if two consenting adults, one of which happens to be about 8 or so is a victimless crime of which laws were passed based on morality.

Seems like you and JM are proving my point rather well though.

AN 8 YEAR OLD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT YOU RETARD!!!!!

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 02:51 PM

What about all those Buddhists not killing, raping, and stealing over in Japan?

Interestingly, if you know something about history, you would know that Buddhists have done lots of killing, raping and stealing in their history.

See the history of China, Mongolia and the butchery of the shogun area in Japan as a starting point.

As a side note, the Tokugawa Shogunate slaughter hundreds of thousands of Christians in order to close Japan from outside influences.

Oh wait, there i go with facts again.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 02:52 PM

AN 8 YEAR OLD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT YOU RETARD!!!!!
Says who? The law?

Who told the law this?

Wouldn't that be another Moral based law then?

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 02:54 PM

or, if you've got children in the house......and i've seen what conditions kids live in when they live with "victimless dopers"

What about children of alcoholics? What about children exposed to secondhand tobacco? We already have child endangerment laws. If we're going to ban dangerous substances alcohol and tobacco should near the top of that that list. Otherwise, legalize the act itself because we already have laws to deal with the consequences.

JohnnyMack

2/14/2006, 02:55 PM

Says who? The law?

Who told the law this?

Wouldn't that be another Moral based law then?

You should go back and watch this:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JKTY.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

It's more your speed.

pb4ou

2/14/2006, 02:57 PM

Heh, "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill" "Conjuction Juntion, what's you function"

jk the sooner fan

2/14/2006, 02:57 PM

What about children of alcoholics? What about children exposed to secondhand tobacco? We already have child endangerment laws. If we're going to ban dangerous substances alcohol and tobacco should near the top of that that list. Otherwise, legalize the act itself because we already have laws to deal with the consequences.

i wont disagree the alcoholism at all.....its a main reason why i dont advocate legalizing marijuana...the last thing we need in this country is another social ill to go along side alcohol

cigarettes is a bit of a stretch for me......

Tear Down This Wall

2/14/2006, 02:57 PM

I think some people are confused about the definition of "morality", even though TDTW posted the definition on the previous page.

Stoop hits the nail on the head here. Morality is morality whether or not espoused by some religious element. The differences are worth considering.

Take, for instance, the example given above of beating a child. Decades ago, it was believed that folks could do as they wanted in raising their children. However, as the severity of some beatings became more public, society decided some parental punishment could be so severe as to warrant a criminal label.

Further, we now go beyond physical abuse when considering what level of punishment from a parent to a child is acceptable. A parent may be criminally liable for psychological damage to a child. Think here of the stories of parents who lock their children in closets or garage without food and not allowing them out even to use the bathroom.

It does not take a religious person to recognize such harsh actions are wrong and laws against such activity should be passed and enforced.

My belief is that there is a small portion of the American populace who has become so narcissistic that any regulation of the activity they love (viewing pornography, smoking marijuana, driving the speed limit), that they cannot understand the value in regulating that activity. Those people then project their anger at these laws on those upholding them at the time. Currently, that is President Bush, who espouses a Christian world view. They forget the fact that prior presidents have also upheld law regarding the same activity, though not publicly stating their reason for doing so being the cause of Christ.

JohnnyMack

2/14/2006, 02:59 PM

Stoop hits the nail onthe head here. Morality is morality whether or not espoused by some religious element. The differences are worth considering.

Take, for instance, the example given above of beating a child. Decades ago, it was believed that folks could do as they wanted in raising their children. However, as the severity of some beatings became more public, society decided some parental punishment could be so severe as to warrant a criminal label.

The morals shifted the laws, not vice versa.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 02:59 PM

Says who? The law?

Who told the law this?

Wouldn't that be another Moral based law then?

Actually, there are a number of psychological and scientific studies that back this up. So no, it's not entirely based on morals.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 02:59 PM

Interestingly, if you know something about history, you would know that Buddhists have done lots of killing, raping and stealing in their history.

And [insert religion here] hasn't?

And...I guess now you're saying Japan is a lawless country because they're all Buddhists instead of Christians?

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 03:03 PM

Interestingly, if you know something about history, you would know that Christians have done lots of killing, raping and stealing in their history.

See the history of India and the butchery of the Indian people in the 40s as a starting point.

As a side note, the Christians slaughtered hundreds of thousands of non-Christians during the Crusades.

Oh wait, there i go with facts again.

Fixed.

The point, which you have missed or tried in vain to subvert, is that morality exists outside of Christianity. That, my friend, is what is called a "fact".

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:05 PM

And [insert religion here] hasn't?Agreed. But didn't you just say Japan never had this problem???

I bet that more people have died at the hands of atheists in the last 200 years than what any religion has ever done though.

And...I guess now you're saying Japan is a lawless country because they're all Buddhists instead of Christians?

No, your reading comprehension must be sorely lacking, you made this statement up all on your own.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:05 PM

cigarettes is a bit of a stretch for me......

You've never delivered pizza in Oklahoma, have you? And no, I'm not being facetious. If you want to explore a complete cross section of society, deliver pizza for awhile. The only effect raising the Oklahoma cigarette tax has is that more kids go without decent shoes. Cigarettes have no redeeming value.

jk the sooner fan

2/14/2006, 03:06 PM

i think the impasse that we've come to is a matter of believers vs non believers

i think that most christians feel that the 10 commandments are the root of morals, and subsequently our laws

i think most non believers.....well they dont believe that

morality can and does exist outside christianity

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:06 PM

No, your reading comprehension must be sorely lacking, you made this statement up all on your own.

Preserved for posterity.

Tear Down This Wall

2/14/2006, 03:07 PM

The morals shifted the laws, not vice versa.

Exactly! That's what we've been saying all along! You're there, dude! :D Morality does shift the laws.

jk the sooner fan

2/14/2006, 03:07 PM

You've never delivered pizza in Oklahoma, have you? And no, I'm not being facetious. If you want to explore a complete cross section of society, deliver pizza for awhile. The only effect raising the Oklahoma cigarette tax has is that more kids go without decent shoes. Cigarettes have no redeeming value.

i grew up in a family of smokers

my dad started when he was 15, he just quit 3 months ago (he's 69)

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:08 PM

Fixed.

The point, which you have missed or tried in vain to subvert, is that morality exists outside of Christianity. That, my friend, is what is called a "fact".

I never said morality did not exist outside of Christianity.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:09 PM

Exactly! That's what we've been saying all along! You're there, dude! :D Morality does shift the laws.
Whats funny is how long it took them to understand they were making our point. :D

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 03:09 PM

I never said morality did not exist outside of Christianity.

Sorry, I missed the point of your post about Japan then. No worries.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:10 PM

I never said morality did not exist outside of Christianity.

Then you're okay without the Ten Commandments posted in schools?

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 03:11 PM

Then you're okay without the Ten Commandments posted in schools?

Oh, man. And I was starting to sense closure.......

Edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mdklatt again.

Clearly, I don't spread enough spek around.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:12 PM

Oh, man. And I was starting to sense closure.......

My bad. :O

Tear Down This Wall

2/14/2006, 03:13 PM

There will never be closure...even though we've gotten JohnnyMack to admit morals shift the law. :D That's good enough for one thread, even without closure on other topics!

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:13 PM

Then you're okay without the Ten Commandments posted in schools?I'm fine with it.

I am not fine with banning it, which you seem to be in favor of.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 03:14 PM

Is morality relative, or is it objectively fixed?

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:17 PM

I think the base of this argument is that we can have the same morals in classrooms, courtrooms, etc. without the obvious religious influence/overshadowing.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:18 PM

I'm fine with it.

I am not fine with banning it, which you seem to be in favor of.

Banning how? The ban on making it mandatory? Sure. The ban on it completely? No. I've never liked obvious religion in schools because I knew a lot of people that felt really uncomfortable with it, even if they were the same religion. Faith is a very private thing for many people.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:20 PM

I think the base of this argument is that we can have the same morals in classrooms, courtrooms, etc. without the obvious religious influence/overshadowing.

Yes but our heritiage and traditions as a people have something to do with this.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/14/2006, 03:21 PM

I never said morality did not exist outside of Christianity.That's it! That's enough. Bring out the lions, and let's get this over with. All the Christians and conservatives get over into the arena, and let's release those lions. It's time for us intellectually and morally superior, fair-minded and politically entitled leftist folks to renew our positions of political majority. We don't need no stinkin' elections! :meat:

Jerk

2/14/2006, 03:21 PM

I haven't read through all this but there is alot of criticism at both parties.

The main problem with Republicans is that they have no balls.

Here they have 2 branches of government and just may have taken over the 3rd, yet:

-The government still gets bigger and spends more.
-There has been no reform of the tax code to end the progressive-socialist BS
-The southern border is out of control.
-The ATF is still screwing law-abiding gun owners over to justify their funding.
-The Dept. of Education still exists.
-Federal power is so great that we might as well not have states.
-There are still quoatas and affirmative action, which should be ended.

The dems are more willing to push their agenda when they have power...which is admirable. Problem is that they are socialist. And socialism does not work.

The only motivation I have to vote is to keep the likes of Nancy Pallosi from coming to power.
Thing is, maybe it needs to happen in order to reform the Republicans and wake up everyone.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:24 PM

Banning how? The ban on making it mandatory? Sure. The ban on it completely? No. I've never liked obvious religion in schools because I knew a lot of people that felt really uncomfortable with it, even if they were the same religion. Faith is a very private thing for many people.
Bans aren't mandatory?

Beyond it being simply religous, it also is relevent as a historical and part of our values and heritage as a people. You know, those judeo-Christian values brought to us by our anscestors.

Interesting that the one document in history our laws can be traced back to is banned from being in a court house or public school. Another great feat by you anti-Christian types who would rather ban information that you hate then allow a free and open forum of ideas.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:25 PM

I'm fine with it.

I am not fine with banning it, which you seem to be in favor of.

Banning it in what context? I'm fine with it as part of scholarship but not as proseltyzing. Talk about it in a religious studies, philosophy, or history class, but don't hang banners all over the school.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:25 PM

I haven't read through all this but there is alot of criticism at both parties.

The main problem with Republicans is that they have no balls.

Here they have 2 branches of government and just may have taken over the 3rd, yet:

-The government still gets bigger and spends more.
-There has been no reform of the tax code to end the progressive-socialist BS
-The southern border is out of control.
-The ATF is still screwing law-abiding gun owners over to justify their funding.
-The Dept. of Education still exists.
-Federal power is so great that we might as well not have states.

The dems are more willing to push their agenda when they have power...which is admirable. Problem is that they are socialist. And socialism does not work.

Dude, that's so 5 pages ago. We're on religion and morals now. Get with it. ;)

GDC

2/14/2006, 03:25 PM

I'll take the over.

heh

Ike

2/14/2006, 03:27 PM

Is morality relative, or is it objectively fixed?

depends on your timescale.

over the course of, say, 30 years or so, the moral compass of any given society remains roughly the same (barring outstanding circumstances)

however, over the course of several generations, the moral compass of a given society can move a great amount.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:28 PM

Bans aren't mandatory?

Beyond it being simply religous, it also is relevent as a historical and part of our values and heritage as a people. You know, those judeo-Christian values brougt to us by our anscestors.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not for banning it from society, but I am in favor of banning it from mandatory participation. As in mandatory prayer in public schools. Mandatory teaching of creationism. Mandatory use of "under God" in the pledge, etc.

I fully appreciate its value to us, but IMO it would be unfair legally to those not a member of the religion.

JohnnyMack

2/14/2006, 03:32 PM

Exactly! That's what we've been saying all along! You're there, dude! :D Morality does shift the laws.

I never said it didn't. I just said that they aren't one in the same.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:35 PM

Banning it in what context? I'm fine with it as part of scholarship but not as proseltyzing. Talk about it in a religious studies, philosophy, or history class, but don't hang banners all over the school.

Ahh, so talk about it, just don't show it.

gotcha.

How openminded and tolerant.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:37 PM

I think you misunderstood. I'm not for banning it from society, but I am in favor of banning it from mandatory participation. As in mandatory prayer in public schools. Mandatory teaching of creationism. Mandatory use of "under God" in the pledge, etc.

I fully appreciate its value to us, but IMO it would be unfair legally to those not a member of the religion.

Last i checked, it was never a crime to not participate in a banner or stone monument of the 10 commandments.

Yet they removed one from my highschool that was built into the original stone of the school. It was over 80 years old. The ACLU made them do that.

Tolerance of the left is amazing. Might as well had a book burning afterwards.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:45 PM

Last i checked, it was never a crime to not participate in a banner or stone monument of the 10 commandments.

Yet they removed one from my highschool that was built into the original stone of the school. It was over 80 years old. The ACLU made them do that.

Tolerance of the left is amazing. Might as well had a book burning afterwards.

I can understand keeping it for history's sake, but how would you feel if you went to a Muslim school and they had Islamic banners everywhere? This nation doesn't have an official religion, so public high schools shouldn't endorse one.

And participation in a banner or other signage IS mandatory if it's in the classroom or someplace where people see it every day. You can only go so far by saying "just ignore it".

And please try to stop putting the slippery slope arguments at the end of all your posts. It's kind of annoying.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 03:47 PM

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:49 PM

Ahh, so talk about it, just don't show it.

gotcha.

How openminded and tolerant.

You can hang the Ten Commandments if and only if you hang the Pillars of Islam next to it. And the Sith Code, because that's just badass. Prayers over the PA should be accompanied by the Muslim call to prayer five times a day. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses should be invited to speak at mandatory assemblies. Some students celebrate a hold day on a weekday; accomodations will be made by all teachers to come in during the weekend. Unless that is a holy day for the teacher, in which case a substitute will be called in. Any discussion of the Salem Witch Trials will require a Wiccan guest lecturer in the interest of equal time. If people want religion in the schools, they're damn well going to get it!

Ike

2/14/2006, 03:50 PM

What if the ACLU required the addition of religious symbols of all of the "major" religions as well a plaque representing Athiesm instead of removal of the Ten Commandments? Would that have been okay?
so long as there was a great noodly appendage surrounding them all ;)

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 03:51 PM

What if the ACLU required the addition of religious symbols of all of the "major" religions

And who would get decide what religion was "major"?

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 03:54 PM

And who would get decide what religion was "major"?

I believe the government keeps a list. Which would mean Scientology would have to be in. And I'll fight HARD to keep that **** out.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 03:58 PM

And who would get decide what religion was "major"?

OklahomaTuba, obviously.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 03:58 PM

What if the ACLU required the addition of religious symbols of all of the "major" religions as well a plaque representing Athiesm instead of removal of the Ten Commandments? Would that have been okay?
I think its up to the individual schools personally.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 04:00 PM

depends on your timescale.

over the course of, say, 30 years or so, the moral compass of any given society remains roughly the same (barring outstanding circumstances)

however, over the course of several generations, the moral compass of a given society can move a great amount.

That's not really what I'm asking. To use your terminology, what I'm asking is, is the "moral compass" separate from morality itself? Or are they the same?

Put another way, are ethics and morality separate, or are they really the same thing?

NOTE: definitions:

morality - the delineation of what is innately right or wrong
ethics - the practical working out of how to conduct oneself in society

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:00 PM

I think its up to the individual schools personally.

See, I just generally disagree with this, but that's a whole 'nother argument. I think I'll just agree to disagree.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 04:00 PM

And who would get decide what religion was "major"?How about the people that own the school or the courthouse? The local community?

Oh wait, you hate democracy, I forgot.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 04:03 PM

See, I just generally disagree with this, but that's a whole 'nother argument. I think I'll just agree to disagree.

Yes, damn that local representation thingy.

If only we had another large federal program run by people a thousand miles away to tell us what to do.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 04:03 PM

I think its up to the individual schools personally.

Schools are inanimate objects. So when you say "schools", who do you mean? Kids? Teachers? Parents? Local administrators? District administrators?

And if the "individual school" your kid attends decides to teach Islam and NOT Christianity, what then? Do you transfer your kid to another school? What kind of mess does that create with kids transferring all over the district/state/country to find a school that fits their religious background?

Isn't it simpler in the end to just let schools teach non-religious topics and churches teach religious ones?

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 04:06 PM

Yes, damn that local representation thingy.

If only we had another large federal program run by people a thousand miles away to tell us what to do.

I'm on board with the notion of more local influence. But I still see logistical problems with giving local communities carte blanche authority on the topic of religion in schools.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 04:08 PM

And if the "individual school" your kid attends decides to teach Islam and NOT Christianity, what then?

Ah, but this is just a hypothetical situation that Christians in the US think will never effect them. However, a couple of weeks ago I heard about school in Richardson, TX that created a Muslim prayer room.

Ike

2/14/2006, 04:09 PM

That's not really what I'm asking. To use your terminology, what I'm asking is, is the "moral compass" separate from morality itself? Or are they the same?

Put another way, are ethics and morality separate, or are they really the same thing?

NOTE: definitions:

morality - the delineation of what is innately right or wrong
ethics - the practical working out of how to conduct oneself in society

depends on what you think about absolutes. is there such a thing as an activity or behavior being innately right or wrong? Or is the rightness or wrongness of a given behavior dictated by society.

if you answer yes to the first question, then a moral compass and morality are two seperate entities, and the moral alignment (or moral compass) of society at large, and your own moral alignment probably clash from time to time.

if you answer yes to the second question, then usually your moral alignment is derived from your peers, and may change as new thinking emerges or new ideas are brought forth....I would argue that most people fall into this category.

OklahomaTuba

2/14/2006, 04:10 PM

Schools are inanimate objects. So when you say "schools", who do you mean? Kids? Teachers? Parents? Local administrators? District administrators?I think all of them. Its a place of learning and a workplace. They should have a say. More so than the ACLU.

And if the "individual school" your kid attends decides to teach Islam and NOT Christianity, what then? Do you transfer your kid to another school? What kind of mess does that create with kids transferring all over the district/state/country to find a school that fits their religious background?

Isn't it simpler in the end to just let schools teach non-religious topics and churches teach religious ones?

Thats fine.

But use some common sense people, instead of just trying to ban ****.

This is a nation that is 80% christian. You don't go to a middleastern country expecting to learn under a judeochristian culture.

What happens if the school teachers speak only spanish??? Sounds about like the same damn thing, does it not?

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:13 PM

Yes, damn that local representation thingy.

If only we had another large federal program run by people a thousand miles away to tell us what to do.

See, I'm not talking local representation, really. Because God knows I hate government meddling in the education of kids as a teacher's son. I'm talking more local determination of constitutional issues, i.e. prayer in school, etc.

I guess I misunderstood your original point about local determination.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 04:13 PM

Schools are inanimate objects. So when you say "schools", who do you mean? Kids? Teachers? Parents? Local administrators? District administrators?

And if the "individual school" your kid attends decides to teach Islam and NOT Christianity, what then? Do you transfer your kid to another school? What kind of mess does that create with kids transferring all over the district/state/country to find a school that fits their religious background?

Isn't it simpler in the end to just let schools teach non-religious topics and churches teach religious ones?

Fine with me, as long as atheism and secular humanism are regarded as religions, and they're not taught either. When the subject of the origin of the universe comes up in science class, the answer better be "people have different ideas on that, and we're not going to talk about it. Next question." The same answer better be given to questions about the age of the earth and the origin of life.

Oh, and we need to make sure to get rid of all religious references, so we can't discuss world or american history, because there's too much religion there. Gotta make sure we have a history textbook that doesn't contain the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

And while we're at it, there's a lot of literature that'll need to be banned, too. Better clean out the libraries and make sure that all the Shakespeare is gone, trash the King Arthur stories, ditto to Dante's Inferno, Homer's epics, Beowulf, Greek tragedies...

Wow. I guess it'd be simpler to get rid of government schools altogether.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 04:15 PM

Ah, but this is just a hypothetical situation that Christians in the US think will never effect them. However, a couple of weeks ago I heard about school in Richardson, TX that created a Muslim prayer room.

That's nice. Do they have a Christian chapel, too?

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 04:18 PM

That's nice. Do they have a Christian chapel, too?

I don't know.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:18 PM

What happens if the school teachers speak only spanish??? Sounds about like the same damn thing, does it not?

See, but I'm in favor of making English the official language. :D

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:21 PM

Fine with me, as long as atheism and secular humanism are regarded as religions, and they're not taught either. When the subject of the origin of the universe comes up in science class, the answer better be "people have different ideas on that, and we're not going to talk about it. Next question." The same answer better be given to questions about the age of the earth and the origin of life.

Oh, and we need to make sure to get rid of all religious references, so we can't discuss world or american history, because there's too much religion there. Gotta make sure we have a history textbook that doesn't contain the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

And while we're at it, there's a lot of literature that'll need to be banned, too. Better clean out the libraries and make sure that all the Shakespeare is gone, trash the King Arthur stories, ditto to Dante's Inferno, Homer's epics, Beowulf, Greek tragedies...

Wow. I guess it'd be simpler to get rid of government schools altogether.

See, you've got good enough arguments without the slippery slopes thrown in there. The only difference I'd say about the origin of the universe is that there's scientific proof of what they teach. If you're going to throw that out, then it's hard to legitimize teaching science at all, since they're based on the same principles.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 04:22 PM

What happens if the school teachers speak only spanish??? Sounds about like the same damn thing, does it not?

I am assuming that you advocate schools teaching in Spanish in predominantly Spanish speaking communities?

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 04:25 PM

soonerscuba

2/14/2006, 04:27 PM

Can we talk about government again, I don't know if America would be a better place if everybody had to subscribe to my code of morals, but it would be a hell of a lot more fun.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 04:29 PM

depends on what you think about absolutes. is there such a thing as an activity or behavior being innately right or wrong? Or is the rightness or wrongness of a given behavior dictated by society.

if you answer yes to the first question, then a moral compass and morality are two seperate entities, and the moral alignment (or moral compass) of society at large, and your own moral alignment probably clash from time to time.

if you answer yes to the second question, then usually your moral alignment is derived from your peers, and may change as new thinking emerges or new ideas are brought forth....I would argue that most people fall into this category.

Yes, you've seen my point! The two positions are contradictory. They can't both be true. If there is such a thing as morality, i.e., innate right and wrong, then what determines right and wrong cannot be derived from general consensus. Because, the consensus could change, and then your original premise is shown to be false. The determination of right and wrong must be left to a source outside of the decision of a collective group.

Morality cannot be created by legislation. Legislation can only reflect morality (or immorality). A thing's legality has no bearing on its morality. I'll take this one step further and argue that the position that right and wrong are dictated by general consensus is invalid, because it is logically absurd.

Now. From whence comes the determination of what is right and wrong, if not from popular opinion?

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:30 PM

Can we talk about government again, I don't know if America would be a better place if everybody had to subscribe to my code of morals, but it would be a hell of a lot more fun.

Someone mentioned the Sith code... That would be pretty sweet. Maybe we can all be Jedis?

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 04:33 PM

See, you've got good enough arguments without the slippery slopes thrown in there.

They're not slippery slopes, they're antagonistic remarks intended to inflame any who might disagree with the contents of the message. From what I have been told, this is not the way a Christian should conduct himself. But I guess with all of the different sects of Christianity out there there are bound to be some who believe that condescention and arrogance are the keys to Heaven.

I only get to read handcrafted's drivel when someone quotes it. Luckily, people don't find it worth quoting very often.

NormanPride

2/14/2006, 04:37 PM

They're not slippery slopes, they're antagonistic remarks intended to inflame any who might disagree with the contents of the message. From what I have been told, this is not the way a Christian should conduct himself. But I guess with all of the different sects of Christianity out there there are bound to be some who believe that condescention and arrogance are the keys to Heaven.

I only get to read handcrafted's drivel when someone quotes it. Luckily, people don't find it worth quoting very often.

Easy there, tiger. I don't agree with him all the time, either, but that doesn't mean people should bash the guy for having a differing opinion. Hell, I've actually agreed with Tuba a couple times because I actually listened to him (fear for me!). :D

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 04:45 PM

I don't agree with him all the time, either, but that doesn't mean people should bash the guy for having a differing opinion.

To be sure, it's not the opinion that is inflamatory. It's the delivery. And I don't have a problem with the delivery either, except that it contradicts the message.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 04:47 PM

Science class is that last place religion needs to be discussed, or tiptoed around. What scientific evidence is there for a literal account of Genesis? There is plenty of observable and verifiable evidence to support the Big Theory and the age of the earth. There is no accepted theory on the origins of life, so that's what you say about that--"We don't know".

I think just saying that "there's no generally accepted theory" is fine. Or saying that "science can't tell us the answer" is also okay. That's more accurate and more informative than "we don't know."

And I got no problem with the Big Bang, seems like there's solid physics behind that theory, and it doesn't touch on religious issues, because the theory doesn't attempt to explain the source of the primordial matter and what the cause of the "bang" was. The Big Bang is just a description of the effect. In the same way, studying genetics and fossils doesn't necessarily touch on the origins of life.

On the age of the earth, the evidence is somewhat less reliable, but as long as it's fully discussed (and not just asserted that "the Earth is billions of years old), I'm fine with that.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 04:49 PM

Or saying that "science can't tell us the answer" is also okay.

Yeah, that's that's the best way of putting it at this point.

Ike

2/14/2006, 04:50 PM

Yes, you've seen my point! The two positions are contradictory. They can't both be true. If there is such a thing as morality, i.e., innate right and wrong, then what determines right and wrong cannot be derived from general consensus. Because, the consensus could change, and then your original premise is shown to be false. The determination of right and wrong must be left to a source outside of the decision of a collective group.

only if you belive the assumption that absolutes do exist. many people do not.

Morality cannot be created by legislation. Legislation can only reflect morality (or immorality). A thing's legality has no bearing on its morality. I'll take this one step further and argue that the position that right and wrong are dictated by general consensus is invalid, because it is logically absurd.

you are right that legality and morality can be mutually exclusive.

but please show your work for that last sentence there.

Now. From whence comes the determination of what is right and wrong, if not from popular opinion?
a very old book of course! the older the better, because they knew everything back in the day!

sarcasm aside though, your argument that a determination of right and wrong must come from an external source assumes that an external source exists. If no external 'morality giving' source exists, then basing any moral code on a very old book, is just as logically absurd (your phrase) as basing your morality on the general consensus, since in effect all you are doing is supplanting the current consensus with a past consensus.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 05:02 PM

To be sure, it's not the opinion that is inflamatory. It's the delivery. And I don't have a problem with the delivery either, except that it contradicts the message.

Nothing inflammatory was intended. I was using a slippery slope argument, combined with a bit of reductio ad absurdum. You can argue whether my slippery slope is valid or not. But I didn't make any personal attacks on anyone. I simply used a rhetorical device. The problem with posting on message boards is, tone of voice cannot be communicated effectively. You assumed that I was being sarcastic or nasty, which I was not. I'm sorry you took it that way.

Look, the message of Christianity is not "I'm okay, you're okay, let's all be shiny happy people."

It's "I'm not okay, you're not okay, and the only way we're gonna be shiny and happy is if we agree with God that He's in charge and break down our idols." Often that message disagrees with people. There is a reason for that. Jesus loved people, but He told it like it is, and didn't mince words when it came to brass tacks. Just read the Gospels some time. If they had happened in our time, and Jesus posted those things on a message board, He'd have gotten banned for flaming people. :)

soonerscuba

2/14/2006, 05:04 PM

I can't accept Jesus because of my love for changing money at church. What about my needs?!!?!?

and ;)

KaiserSooner

2/14/2006, 05:10 PM

I'd agree with this, adding that they seem to be employing a disturbing trend (to me) of adding religious ties in to a lot of what they say/do.

Not that I'm anti-religious at ALL, but that I think it's bad for both government and religion to tie them together...

I hear ya.

It isn't uncommon for nationalist movements to tie their romantic image of the nation with religion. The nationalists of Spanish Civil War fame are the most blatant example of this.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 05:12 PM

I can't accept Jesus because of my love for changing money at church.

We're not supposed to buy quarters from the collection plate? :O

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 05:31 PM

only if you belive the assumption that absolutes do exist. many people do not.

you are right that legality and morality can be mutually exclusive.

but please show your work for that last sentence there.

Okay. Up until about 200 years ago, the general consensus in the USA and some other countries was that black africans were less than human, and therefore it was permissible to enslave them. In 1865, such an attitude was, correctly, renounced in this country as morally repugnant. Consensus changed. So, was slavery right prior to 1865, or was it wrong? Using the consensus theory, it was right. If it was right, why did people want to abolish it?

The same argument can be made with Nazi Germany. But it goes back a lot farther than that. In the ancient world, the consensus of the majority of nations was that human sacrifice, especially children, was morally right. The Roman Empire, which ruled the known world for about 700 years, generated the idea that watching people brutally kill each other, and get eaten by lions, was a civilized form of entertainment. Again, consensus. Was the activity right or wrong?

a very old book of course! the older the better, because they knew everything back in the day!

The source is not the book. The source is the Author. The book is just the written version of what was already reality.

sarcasm aside though, your argument that a determination of right and wrong must come from an external source assumes that an external source exists. If no external 'morality giving' source exists, then basing any moral code on a very old book, is just as logically absurd (your phrase) as basing your morality on the general consensus, since in effect all you are doing is supplanting the current consensus with a past consensus.

Your argument is logically valid. However, *my* argument disproves your premise 1, that no external 'morality giving' source exists. If no external authority exists, there is no basis for calling any given activity innately "right" or "wrong". You would then have to say that such an activity may be right under certain circumstances, and wrong under others.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 05:33 PM

I don't know.

I better sick the ACLJ on them then. :D

Frozen Sooner

2/14/2006, 05:37 PM

I think just saying that "there's no generally accepted theory" is fine. Or saying that "science can't tell us the answer" is also okay. That's more accurate and more informative than "we don't know."

And I got no problem with the Big Bang, seems like there's solid physics behind that theory, and it doesn't touch on religious issues, because the theory doesn't attempt to explain the source of the primordial matter and what the cause of the "bang" was. The Big Bang is just a description of the effect. In the same way, studying genetics and fossils doesn't necessarily touch on the origins of life.

On the age of the earth, the evidence is somewhat less reliable, but as long as it's fully discussed (and not just asserted that "the Earth is billions of years old), I'm fine with that.

Except there IS a generally accepted theory of how people got here. It's called darwinistic evolution. There is no widespred disagreement between biological scientists on this score nor is there any serious debate about it. It's pretty much a settled question.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 05:39 PM

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 05:39 PM

Except there IS a generally accepted theory of how people got here. It's called darwinistic evolution. There is no widespred disagreement between biological scientists on this score nor is there any serious debate about it. It's pretty much a settled question.

Those statements are demonstrably false. But, as MD said, the issue of how the earth got here in the first place isn't addressed by Darwin or his progeny, or by any other area of scientific inquiry. I can show you how evolution is unbiblical, but that's a matter of Biblical interpretation, not science. The *source* of creation and the *process* of creation are two different issues.

Frozen Sooner

2/14/2006, 06:17 PM

Those statements are demonstrably false. But, as MD said, the issue of how the earth got here in the first place isn't addressed by Darwin or his progeny, or by any other area of scientific inquiry. I can show you how evolution is unbiblical, but that's a matter of Biblical interpretation, not science. The *source* of creation and the *process* of creation are two different issues.

Actually, they're not demonstrably false. I'm sure you can find papers out there that claim to poke holes in evolution. You can find people to write any silly damn thing you want. Serious, widespread doubt in the scientific community as to the vailidity of evolution? You won't find it unless it's something you really want to.

And yes, cosmogony is addressed by scientific inquiry. Why it got here isn't.

Try not to confuse reading your Bible with actually doing science. They're not the same thing.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 06:24 PM

But Evolution doesn't address the beginning of life.

But it does appear to contradict the story of creation as told in Genesis. And that has serious implications.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 06:26 PM

Those statements are demonstrably false. But, as MD said, the issue of how the earth got here in the first place isn't addressed by Darwin or his progeny, or by any other area of scientific inquiry.

Whoa, whoa, whoa--how the earth got here is addressed by the Big Bang, which doesn't rule out a supreme creator at all ("and God said, let there be light"). How people got here on the earth is addressed by Evolution. What science cannot explain is how life first began. There are hypotheses, but no accepted theory.

Czar Soonerov

2/14/2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mjcpr
I predict: 8 pages

I'll take the over.

What do I win?

Ike

2/14/2006, 06:26 PM

Okay. Up until about 200 years ago, the general consensus in the USA and some other countries was that black africans were less than human, and therefore it was permissible to enslave them. In 1865, such an attitude was, correctly, renounced in this country as morally repugnant. Consensus changed. So, was slavery right prior to 1865, or was it wrong? Using the consensus theory, it was right. If it was right, why did people want to abolish it?

consensus started changing when slavery morphed from a financial status issue where people sold themselves into slavery for a variety of reasons, or were made slaves for being on the losing side of a war, to being a method of racial exploitation and repression. It takes time for any consensus to change, and 1865 was the tipping point. Slavery as it existed in the US was only right to the people that accepted the argument that blacks were less than human, and if you accept that argument, then slavery cannot be considered wrong any more than owning a horse is wrong. Fortunately, the notion that blacks are less than human lost favor. The rightness or wrongness of black slavery entirely depended on whether you bought that notion. but before slavery was used as a tool of racial oppression, there weren't many people at all wanting to abolish it, as the majority of slaves were in that position due to their financial status (sometimes even voluntarily), rather than due to the notion that they were less than human.

from a different angle though, to say that slavery is innately wrong creates a contradiction with your old book...since, your author of that book outlines the manner in which slaves are to be treated....if it was innately wrong from the beginning, why go to all that trouble?

The same argument can be made with Nazi Germany. But it goes back a lot farther than that. In the ancient world, the consensus of the majority of nations was that human sacrifice, especially children, was morally right. The Roman Empire, which ruled the known world for about 700 years, generated the idea that watching people brutally kill each other, and get eaten by lions, was a civilized form of entertainment. Again, consensus. Was the activity right or wrong?

The source is not the book. The source is the Author. The book is just the written version of what was already reality.

Your argument is logically valid. However, *my* argument disproves your premise 1, that no external 'morality giving' source exists. If no external authority exists, there is no basis for calling any given activity innately "right" or "wrong". You would then have to say that such an activity may be right under certain circumstances, and wrong under others.
now you are going with the circular logic. your argument merely asks the question of an innate rightness or wrongness by using the powerful image of slavery and other reprehensible things of the past, and does not prove the existence of an external source of morality. The practices of the past were right when the principles upon which they were founded were accepted. These principles have since been rejected, and the rejection of those principles make those practices nauseating and horrific to us. The people who fought to change these practices were among the first to reject those principles, and most people followed suit later.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 06:34 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa--how the earth got here is addressed by the Big Bang, which doesn't rule out a supreme creator at all ("and God said, let there be light"). How people got here on the earth is addressed by Evolution. What science cannot explain is how life first began. There are hypotheses, but no accepted theory.

Ack, you're right, I think I must have misunderstood your last post. Apologies.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 06:38 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa--how the earth got here is addressed by the Big Bang, which doesn't rule out a supreme creator at all

While it doesn't logically rule out a supreme creator, it does cast serious doubt on the accuracy - or at least usefulness - of the Bible.

The English translations clearly indicates that God created the Earth in 6 days. So, either:

1. The original Hebrew did not use the word that means "day". If this is the case, then I have serious concerns over the rest of the translation as well.

2. Genesis doesn't really mean "day" even though it clearly says "day". If this is the case, then how can we know what any of the words in the Bible really mean? I mean, if such a simple word as "day" cannot be taken at face value, of what use is the rest of it?

I'm thinking that evolution and the Bible are not friends at all.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 06:47 PM

What do I win?

A picture? ;)

http://www.maximumfubar.com/imgs/funnies/tn_captain%20obvious.jpg

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 06:50 PM

While it doesn't logically rule out a supreme creator, it does cast serious doubt on the accuracy - or at least usefulness - of the Bible.

Not all Christians take everything in the Bible literally. Even the Vatican recognizes Evolution (they must have learned their lesson from Galileo). Which raises the question of how these Christians decide what to take to take literally and what to take as poetic license. A literal Bible is on shaky factual grounds, but a metaphorical Bible doesn't seem very useful at all.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 06:51 PM

from a different angle though, to say that slavery is innately wrong creates a contradiction with your old book...since, your author of that book outlines the manner in which slaves are to be treated....if it was innately wrong from the beginning, why go to all that trouble?[QUOTE]

That question rests on Biblical interpretation and an understanding of progressive revelation. It has to do with certain civil laws that were given to ancient Israel for purposes of bringing them along, showing them the impracticality of relying on their own laws as a measure of righteousness, etc. Jesus discussed this very issue in the Sermon on the Mount. He told the Jewish leaders, for example, that the OT laws about divorce were given to them because of the hardness of their hearts, but "from the beginning it was not always so", indicating that easy divorce really wasn't God's overall plan, but He allowed it to be law for a limited time for a specific purpose. Slavery (or really, as you said, indentured servitude) was a fact of economic life back then, so it needed to be addressed. But the Israelites were not allowed to enslave each other, only foreigners. And the foreign bondservant was expected to follow the law as well. And there were rules about how bondservants were to be treated. The whole thing was nothing like Roman forced slavery, or even the modern version.

[QUOTE]now you are going with the circular logic. your argument merely asks the question of an innate rightness or wrongness by using the powerful image of slavery and other reprehensible things of the past, and does not prove the existence of an external source of morality. The practices of the past were right when the principles upon which they were founded were accepted. These principles have since been rejected, and the rejection of those principles make those practices nauseating and horrific to us. The people who fought to change these practices were among the first to reject those principles, and most people followed suit later.

Okay. So, what you are saying is, that sometime in the future, the United Nations could pass a resolution that murdering children to control the population is a moral imperative. And, world governments would be justified in carrying out the mass execution of children as needed. And only if enough people band together and reject that principle, would it then again be considered morally repugnant. Is that correct?

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 06:54 PM

While it doesn't logically rule out a supreme creator, it does cast serious doubt on the accuracy - or at least usefulness - of the Bible.

The English translations clearly indicates that God created the Earth in 6 days. So, either:

1. The original Hebrew did not use the word that means "day". If this is the case, then I have serious concerns over the rest of the translation as well.

2. Genesis doesn't really mean "day" even though it clearly says "day". If this is the case, then how can we know what any of the words in the Bible really mean? I mean, if such a simple word as "day" cannot be taken at face value, of what use is the rest of it?

I'm thinking that evolution and the Bible are not friends at all.

The Hebrew word "day" (yom) can either mean a 24 hour period, or a finite but undefined period of time. Hebrew's vocabulary is quite small, only 12,000 words or so. Most of its words have multiple meanings. Context determines the reading.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 06:56 PM

Not all Christians take everything in the Bible literally. Even the Vatican recognizes Evolution (they must have learned their lesson from Galileo). Which raises the question of how these Christians decide what to take to take literally and what to take as poetic license. A literal Bible is on shaky factual grounds, but a metaphorical Bible doesn't seem very useful at all.

That depends on what you mean by "literal". A lot of Christians misuse or don't understand that word.

MamaMia

2/14/2006, 06:57 PM

I'm neither or...I'm numb now. Politics has gotten to be so negative and I'm a positive creature. :)

Ike

2/14/2006, 06:58 PM

[QUOTE=Ike]
from a different angle though, to say that slavery is innately wrong creates a contradiction with your old book...since, your author of that book outlines the manner in which slaves are to be treated....if it was innately wrong from the beginning, why go to all that trouble?[QUOTE]

That question rests on Biblical interpretation and an understanding of progressive revelation. It has to do with certain civil laws that were given to ancient Israel for purposes of bringing them along, showing them the impracticality of relying on their own laws as a measure of righteousness, etc. Jesus discussed this very issue in the Sermon on the Mount. He told the Jewish leaders, for example, that the OT laws about divorce were given to them because of the hardness of their hearts, but "from the beginning it was not always so", indicating that easy divorce really wasn't God's overall plan, but He allowed it to be law for a limited time for a specific purpose. Slavery (or really, as you said, indentured servitude) was a fact of economic life back then, so it needed to be addressed. But the Israelites were not allowed to enslave each other, only foreigners. And the foreign bondservant was expected to follow the law as well. And there were rules about how bondservants were to be treated. The whole thing was nothing like Roman forced slavery, or even the modern version.

Okay. So, what you are saying is, that sometime in the future, the United Nations could pass a resolution that murdering children to control the population is a moral imperative. And, world governments would be justified in carrying out the mass execution of children as needed. And only if enough people band together and reject that principle, would it then again be considered morally repugnant. Is that correct?

not entirely....moral consensus is not dictated to us by the UN, or any other kind of governing body. However, if some line of thinking emerges in the future (and is roundly accepted) that population control is more important than an individuals life, then yes, these governments might have reason to feel justified in doing so. I don't think we are in any danger of this becoming the predominant way of thinking, because our own government itself is founded on the principle that the individual's rights are paramount. Our form of government would have to go down the tubes before such a thing could happen.

handcrafted

2/14/2006, 07:05 PM

[QUOTE=handcrafted][QUOTE=Ike]
from a different angle though, to say that slavery is innately wrong creates a contradiction with your old book...since, your author of that book outlines the manner in which slaves are to be treated....if it was innately wrong from the beginning, why go to all that trouble?

not entirely....moral consensus is not dictated to us by the UN, or any other kind of governing body. However, if some line of thinking emerges in the future (and is roundly accepted) that population control is more important than an individuals life, then yes, these governments might have reason to feel justified in doing so. I don't think we are in any danger of this becoming the predominant way of thinking, because our own government itself is founded on the principle that the individual's rights are paramount. Our form of government would have to go down the tubes before such a thing could happen.

You know, you can say stuff like this in theory, because you don't think it's ever going to happen. But how would you really feel if it *did* actually happen?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you having proved that moral relativism is patently absurd. With help from Ike.

soonerscuba

2/14/2006, 07:07 PM

Can Ike help you with your young earth theory that is patently absurd, I mean, one good turn deserves another.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 07:30 PM

Which raises the question of how these Christians decide what to take to take literally and what to take as poetic license. A literal Bible is on shaky factual grounds, but a metaphorical Bible doesn't seem very useful at all.

Exactly.

Ike

2/14/2006, 07:32 PM

[QUOTE=Ike][QUOTE=handcrafted]

You know, you can say stuff like this in theory, because you don't think it's ever going to happen. But how would you really feel if it *did* actually happen?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you having proved that moral relativism is patently absurd. With help from Ike.

you have only proved that you suck at logic. I would hate to see such a thing actually happen because I reject the notion that anything trumps the rights of the individual. And were such a thing to happen, I would take up arms to fight it. this is the nature of things, and how human thinking (and morality) evolves.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 07:36 PM

However, if some line of thinking emerges in the future (and is roundly accepted) that population control is more important than an individuals life, then yes, these governments might have reason to feel justified in doing so.

What's more likely is that science will put forth yet another theory that is roundly accepted and the Bible will yet again be "interpreted" to prove its accuracy and infallibility.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 07:40 PM

Jerk

2/14/2006, 07:46 PM

I believe in God and the Bible, but I'm not going to get into why anyone here should. It's your business.

Here is the thing that concerns me about a civilization who forgets God, and yes, I've said it before:

For many years back in Europe, they believed that all power ultimately derived from the Almighty Creator. The King or Queen was next in line, leaving the people at the bottom. So...power flowed from God, to king, then to people.

The Founding Fathers, among others, switched it. They believed that God was the source of all power, and that power then went to the people, and LASTLY to government.. Power flows from God, to people, to gov't.

Now we have secular humanists who want to take God out of the equation (power flows from the people to the government)

The problem is, how long will it take this to flip? i.e. Gov't to people? The result being that we all wind up under the weight of a tyrannical government which makes up its own rules.

mdklatt

2/14/2006, 07:51 PM

The problem is, how long will it take this to flip? i.e. Gov't to people? The result being that we all wind up under the weight of a tyrannical government which makes up its own rules.

We're closer than you think, which is brings us full circle to why I'm no longer a Republican.

Stoop Dawg

2/14/2006, 08:04 PM

We're closer than you think, which is brings us full circle to why I'm no longer a Republican.

Are you implying that George Bush, a Christian, is doing the "flipping"?

Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so!

OKC Sooner

2/14/2006, 08:05 PM

I'm a Libertarian, last Halloween I dressed up as as Conan The Librarian (dress shirt and pocket protector plus horned helmet as befits a barbarian), I'm a decided non-vegetarian, a backslidden Unitarian (studied religion at OBU but never became a seminarian), I once saw a movie about a librarian named Marion, at one time I used a database program named Clarion, and I have a good friend who's a veterinarian.

And every word is true. :D

P.S. I'm part Cherokee, so could not be considered Aryan.

Ike

2/14/2006, 11:01 PM

What's more likely is that science will put forth yet another theory that is roundly accepted and the Bible will yet again be "interpreted" to prove its accuracy and infallibility.

most likely...there are a million and one different ways to interpret words on a page.

for the other people on the board that were trying to follow handcrafted's illogical progression, what he was trying to show a reductio ad absurdum (look it up, it's a method of disproving an assumption) argument with regards to moral relativism. He attempted to show that if you accept moral relativism, an absurd situation follows. However, to arrive at his absurd situation, or situations, one has to introduce an extra absurd assumption, which negates the premise of the entire argument, because if that were to actually work, one could prove that anything was logically absurd simply by adding extra absurd assumptions.

one also has to be careful with these kinds of arguments, as you might actually wind up supporting the position you set out to disprove if your 'absurdity' turns out to be true. Einstien did exactly this when he tried to disprove quantum mechanics....inadvertently.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/15/2006, 12:51 AM

We're closer than you think, which is brings us full circle to why I'm no longer a Republican.It's a bit hard to believe you ever were a Republican.

yermom

2/15/2006, 12:54 AM

Octavian

2/15/2006, 01:12 AM

It's a bit hard to believe you ever were a Republican.

think he was saying he was a pre-9/11 small gov't sort who feared intrusion and valued individualism in forms not limited to commerce

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 07:35 AM

[QUOTE=handcrafted][QUOTE=Ike]

you have only proved that you suck at logic. I would hate to see such a thing actually happen because I reject the notion that anything trumps the rights of the individual. And were such a thing to happen, I would take up arms to fight it. this is the nature of things, and how human thinking (and morality) evolves.

*I* suck at logic? Dude, I've just argued circles around you and you don't even realize it.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 07:37 AM

Christians can say they believe in God becuase they don't think God can ever be disproved. But how would they feel if God *were* disproved?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you having proved that Christianity is patently absurd. With help from handcrafted.

(Wow, proofs are so much easier when logic is not required)

You do realize that is a completely silly argument and has nothing to do with what Ike and I have been discussing.

Which is more absurd? God's existence, or the assertion that murdering children is moral?

The fact is that everyone operates in a world with moral absolutes. It doesn't matter what they say. Those who assert moral relativism nevertheless *act* in a manner totally inconsistent with their statements. Anyone who says anything is "right" or "wrong" borrows from the Christian worldview in so doing. Without an external law-giver, morality is left to be decided by those in power. Whoever is in power, decides what's right and wrong. That, ladies and gentlemen, is tyranny.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 07:42 AM

Can Ike help you with your young earth theory that is patently absurd, I mean, one good turn deserves another.

You assume I'm a young earther. Your assumption may be inaccurate.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 07:48 AM

most likely...there are a million and one different ways to interpret words on a page.

for the other people on the board that were trying to follow handcrafted's illogical progression, what he was trying to show a reductio ad absurdum (look it up, it's a method of disproving an assumption) argument with regards to moral relativism. He attempted to show that if you accept moral relativism, an absurd situation follows. However, to arrive at his absurd situation, or situations, one has to introduce an extra absurd assumption, which negates the premise of the entire argument, because if that were to actually work, one could prove that anything was logically absurd simply by adding extra absurd assumptions.

one also has to be careful with these kinds of arguments, as you might actually wind up supporting the position you set out to disprove if your 'absurdity' turns out to be true. Einstien did exactly this when he tried to disprove quantum mechanics....inadvertently.

You guys worship science like its a god. Science can do anything. Everything that happens must be measured against science. Well, ya know what? Science has been WRONG in the past! Yes, it's true! Scientists have been WRONG. "Generally accepted theories" have been disproven time and time again.

What if, in the future, the scientific theory about the age of the earth is proven wrong? What if it is eventually discovered that the earth is only 6000 years old? Will you believe the Bible then? No, of course you won't. You'll just believe that science will eventually prove the Bible wrong again, and satisfy yourselves with that.

Assert what you want. Believe what you want. But don't delude yourselves into thinking you're being objective, because you're not. You are exercising faith in things you can't see. Everyone does it. The question is, in what are you going to place your faith? Fallible humans who have an agenda and are biased and mistake-prone like everyone else?

GDC

2/15/2006, 08:31 AM

Who was the first US president whose full name contained all the letters in the word "criminal"?

White House Boy

2/15/2006, 09:18 AM

I predict: 8 pages

Heh heh. Who knew?

Ike

2/15/2006, 09:19 AM

You guys worship science like its a god. Science can do anything. Everything that happens must be measured against science. Well, ya know what? Science has been WRONG in the past! Yes, it's true! Scientists have been WRONG. "Generally accepted theories" have been disproven time and time again.

What if, in the future, the scientific theory about the age of the earth is proven wrong? What if it is eventually discovered that the earth is only 6000 years old? Will you believe the Bible then? No, of course you won't. You'll just believe that science will eventually prove the Bible wrong again, and satisfy yourselves with that.

Assert what you want. Believe what you want. But don't delude yourselves into thinking you're being objective, because you're not. You are exercising faith in things you can't see. Everyone does it. The question is, in what are you going to place your faith? Fallible humans who have an agenda and are biased and mistake-prone like everyone else?

the thing is, we are OK with science being wrong, because thats part of the process. you can't get any closer to real truth if you are afraid of being wrong. I don't care what happens with respect to the bible. prove it wrong, prove it right, its no biggie for me. But I'd rather ask the questions nobody has bothered to ask and try to get as close as possible to real physical truth as possible, rather than just believe what somebody tells me.

the difference is, I know what evidence it will take to change my mind. and from my vantage point placing your faith in anything is placing your faith in fallable humans with agendas that are biased and mistake prone. the difference with science is that we work very hard to ensure that mistakes and biases are eliminated from analysis. doesn't always happen and some get through the cracks, but the process is one that eventually discards mistakes and biases and gets much closer to the truth. we don't assume to know the truth before the question is asked.

Ike

2/15/2006, 09:34 AM

You do realize that is a completely silly argument and has nothing to do with what Ike and I have been discussing.

Which is more absurd? God's existence, or the assertion that murdering children is moral?

The fact is that everyone operates in a world with moral absolutes. It doesn't matter what they say. Those who assert moral relativism nevertheless *act* in a manner totally inconsistent with their statements. Anyone who says anything is "right" or "wrong" borrows from the Christian worldview in so doing. Without an external law-giver, morality is left to be decided by those in power. Whoever is in power, decides what's right and wrong. That, ladies and gentlemen, is tyranny.

you are right that everyone operates with moral absolutes, however those absolutes are different for everyone. how do you determine which are 'real' absolutes, and which are 'false'. of course, this falls to the method of "I'm right, you're wrong" pretty much all of the time....and then wars get fought.
the winners then establish their consensus, whether it is actually right or not.
the existence of an external law-giver is, in my opinion, just simply a tool to try and confer legitimacy on any moral code tossed down by whoemver is in power. tyranny just the same.

OklahomaTuba

2/15/2006, 09:44 AM

the winners then establish their consensus, whether it is actually right or not.
the existence of an external law-giver is, in my opinion, just simply a tool to try and confer legitimacy on any moral code tossed down by whoemver is in power. tyranny just the same.

Didn't the 10 commandments come from God and to the Jews?

The tyranny of the Jews? :rolleyes:

Ike

2/15/2006, 09:53 AM

thats the official line...but more likely, they came from moses to the jews. or from someone else entirely.

but you aren't supposed to question that I'm told.

JohnnyMack

2/15/2006, 09:57 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you having proved that moral relativism is patently absurd. With help from Ike.

A Christian calling someone else's beliefs patently absurd.

Wow this thread is getting good.

OklahomaTuba

2/15/2006, 10:03 AM

thats the official line...but more likely, they came from moses to the jews. or from someone else entirely.

but you aren't supposed to question that I'm told.

No questioning is good IMO. Why are there so many denominations? Take Martin Luther as a great example. Or better yet, the thousands of biblical scholars doing research on the biblical history and archeology to find more facts.

Oh wait, those facts kind of gut the whole "Christians are stupid cause they don't ask questions they just follow along like sheep" theory you are telling us you believe.

Ike

2/15/2006, 10:16 AM

No questioning is good IMO. Why are there so many denominations? Take Martin Luther as a great example. Or better yet, the thousands of biblical scholars doing research on the biblical history and archeology to find more facts.

Oh wait, those facts kind of gut the whole "Christians are stupid cause they don't ask questions they just follow along like sheep" theory you are telling us you believe.

I've never asserted that they don't ask questions, however, the major questions seem to never get asked, and are always skirted around, due to the complications that they might cause. did god really do anything at all? what if the book isn't as infallable as it claims?

nobody within christianty seems to ever want to tackle these questions, because thats where faith starts....and well, I just don't have that kind of faith.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:17 AM

you are right that everyone operates with moral absolutes, however those absolutes are different for everyone. how do you determine which are 'real' absolutes, and which are 'false'. of course, this falls to the method of "I'm right, you're wrong" pretty much all of the time....and then wars get fought.
the winners then establish their consensus, whether it is actually right or not.
the existence of an external law-giver is, in my opinion, just simply a tool to try and confer legitimacy on any moral code tossed down by whoemver is in power. tyranny just the same.

So, to take your analysis to a logical conclusion, what you are saying is that any human government is by definition tyrannical?

I also need to point out that you are misusing the word "absolute". By definition, a moral absolute cannot be "different for everyone". Absolute implies objective and external. "Relative" implies subjective and internal. So you're really back to arguing that morality is relative and subjective.

And I'm back to *my* original argument, that the only conclusion to be drawn from moral relativism is that nobody has the moral authority to do anything, and that concepts of right and wrong are meaningless in that context. And that includes the concept of "tyranny", which implies that government by total control and power over the people is a bad thing. Which, under your analysis, it's clearly not. In fact, it's the norm.

At least you're being logically consistent here. The trouble is, you can make that argument in the abstract, but as you live your life, you bear out its falsehood, and disprove the premises of the argument.

OklahomaTuba

2/15/2006, 10:18 AM

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 10:19 AM

It's a bit hard to believe you ever were a Republican.

Why?

I am for less government intrusion in our lives. I thought that's what the Republicans stood for, too. Apparently not.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 10:21 AM

think he was saying he was a pre-9/11 small gov't sort who feared intrusion and valued individualism in forms not limited to commerce

Bingo!

I am a lower-case 'l' libertarian. The Libertarian Party is kind of kooky to me.

GDC

2/15/2006, 10:23 AM

Who was the first US president whose full name contained all the letters in the word "criminal"?

Okay, I'll resort to quoting myself.

Richard Milhouse Nixon

Who was the second and only other one? I bet Tuba knows it.:)

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 10:25 AM

*I* suck at logic? Dude, I've just argued circles around you and you don't even realize it.

If he (and others) doesn't realize it, what's the point?

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:28 AM

I've never asserted that they don't ask questions, however, the major questions seem to never get asked, and are always skirted around, due to the complications that they might cause. did god really do anything at all? what if the book isn't as infallable as it claims?

nobody within christianty seems to ever want to tackle these questions, because thats where faith starts....and well, I just don't have that kind of faith.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. :D

You seem to assume, for some reason, that these questions *haven't* been asked and tackled. Despite what you think, Christians are not ignorant rubes. Scholars have studied and addressed the issues you bring up for centuries, and have answered these questions. The answers are there for you to read, should you be so inclined. And the Church is still here.

People in general 500 or even 2000 years ago (or more) were not ignorant rubes either. I've been to the Pyramids. I've been *inside* one of them. They are marvels of engineering and architecture, and they were built close to *5000* years ago. And they are still standing. You think any of our modern buildings will be standing in 5000 years?

You think we are more intelligent and resourceful than any humans in history? That's a lot of hogwash. We have more toys, that's all.

Scott D

2/15/2006, 10:32 AM

I think some people are confused about the definition of "morality", even though TDTW posted the definition on the previous page.

and ironically religion isn't anywhere in the definition, I guess those dirty libz got to the dictionary people ;)

JohnnyMack

2/15/2006, 10:32 AM

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. :D

You seem to assume, for some reason, that these questions *haven't* been asked and tackled. Despite what you think, Christians are not ignorant rubes. Scholars have studied and addressed the issues you bring up for centuries, and have answered these questions. The answers are there for you to read, should you be so inclined. And the Church is still here.

People in general 500 or even 2000 years ago (or more) were not ignorant rubes either. I've been to the Pyramids. I've been *inside* one of them. They are marvels of engineering and architecture, and they were built close to *5000* years ago. And they are still standing. You think any of our modern buildings will be standing in 5000 years?

You think we are more intelligent and resourceful than any humans in history? That's a lot of hogwash. We have more toys, that's all.

What the **** does any of that have to do questioning the fundamental tenets of Christianity? Where's the proof man? Prove it.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 10:35 AM

You guys worship science like its a god. Science can do anything. Everything that happens must be measured against science.

This is perfect time for an anecdote.

When I first started working I was involved with validating Oklahoma's weather modification program back in the late 90's. I put together a web site about the program and cloud seeding in general that still generates inquiries every now and then. Last year I got an e-mail from a scientist in Iran asking me for some more information. I referred him to a program in Israel, where they have a long history of doing the type of cloud seeding I think he was asking about.

To sum up: A scientist in Iran asked me, over here in the Great Satan, for some information. And I referred him to the Little Satan (Israel), which I'm sure didn't bother him one bit. While the political and religious zealots of the world are busy screaming at and killing each other, scientists from around the world are collaborating, attending conferences together, and kicking back and having beers with each other at the end of the day.

And you think science is the problem?

Scott D

2/15/2006, 10:37 AM

What I always find amusing about religion arguments is that the church goer says 'God is right and Church proves it.'

Whereas my mindset is 'God is right, and Church is full of crap, and wholly unnecessary.'

Ike

2/15/2006, 10:37 AM

Thats not true at all. I mean, isn't this was ID is all about?
if you take a look at some of the papers written by ID'ers out there (which never made it into any kind of journal at all), it really wasnt. a while ago I took a look at some of them just as a curiosity, because I thought maybe they really were asking good questions. the problem was that they weren't. they weren't really asking any questions at all. they began with the hypothesis that some things are just too complex to have been created through natural processes, and then, they half heartedly tried to dress that up with math. no mention of any initial conditions (absolutely nessecary in order to calculate any kind of probability), no mention of any possible mechanisms, and with an arbitrarily set threshold for determining whether something would be designed or naturally occurring. they made back of the envelope 'calculations' for things like the probability to form DNA...but without a mechanism or a set of initial conditions, such calculations are completely meaningless. admittedly, we don't yet have a mechanism for the creation of DNA, but without one, you also can't claim its too complex to occur naturally, as there may be some condition or set of conditions that make its formation simple and abundant. they didn't seem too interested in asking that question though.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:46 AM

the thing is, we are OK with science being wrong, because thats part of the process. you can't get any closer to real truth if you are afraid of being wrong. I don't care what happens with respect to the bible. prove it wrong, prove it right, its no biggie for me. But I'd rather ask the questions nobody has bothered to ask and try to get as close as possible to real physical truth as possible, rather than just believe what somebody tells me.

the difference is, I know what evidence it will take to change my mind. and from my vantage point placing your faith in anything is placing your faith in fallable humans with agendas that are biased and mistake prone. the difference with science is that we work very hard to ensure that mistakes and biases are eliminated from analysis. doesn't always happen and some get through the cracks, but the process is one that eventually discards mistakes and biases and gets much closer to the truth. we don't assume to know the truth before the question is asked.

I want to make sure at this point that you don't think that I am against scientific inquiry. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a wonderful tool and I am constantly amazed by what's discovered in various fields (yes, I try to keep up). The job of science is to explain how the universe operates, but it is not, and was never intended to, explain how the universe got here in the first place, or why it's structured the way it is. What I object to is holding science up as the ultimate arbiter of *any* truth.

Part of my faith entails the concept that the Bible and science do not, and will never, contradict each other. The Bible is not a science book (although it does mention certain scientific concepts). It contains many forms of literature which must be read in their original context. If we find through scientific inquiry that something is absolutely true about the nature of the earth, biology, astrophysics, etc., then we must read the Bible in the context of our discovery. Likewise, if the Bible states that a thing is absolutely true, we must adjust our scientific inquiry to not go down paths of falsehood.

Right now, the theory is that the earth is very old. Now, I would argue that is being called into question. But even if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, in the future, that the earth is in fact billions of years old, we can read Genesis in a way that is consistent both with the meaning of the original Hebrew, and with scientific inquiry. Genesis describes creation in general terms, but leaves out the specifics. God obviously did not see fit to tell Moses the details, because they weren't important at the time. Not that they aren't interesting to us now, but in the overall scheme of "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me", the details are kind of secondary.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:47 AM

Why?

I am for less government intrusion in our lives. I thought that's what the Republicans stood for, too. Apparently not.

Not these days they don't. :mad:

GDC

2/15/2006, 10:47 AM

William Jefferson Clinton! Thanks for playing!

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:49 AM

If he (and others) doesn't realize it, what's the point?

That's a good question. :D

I suppose I feel compelled by some external source of moral authority. :)

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:53 AM

This is perfect time for an anecdote.

When I first started working I was involved with validating Oklahoma's weather modification program back in the late 90's. I put together a web site about the program and cloud seeding in general that still generates inquiries every now and then. Last year I got an e-mail from a scientist in Iran asking me for some more information. I referred him to a program in Israel, where they have a long history of doing the type of cloud seeding I think he was asking about.

To sum up: A scientist in Iran asked me, over here in the Great Satan, for some information. And I referred him to the Little Satan (Israel), which I'm sure didn't bother him one bit. While the political and religious zealots of the world are busy screaming at and killing each other, scientists from around the world are collaborating, attending conferences together, and kicking back and having beers with each other at the end of the day.

And you think science is the problem?

Sometimes scientists act more Christian than the Church does.

I think it needs to be stated that, in these discussions, one must separate the truth of the arguments from the people delivering them. The Church is full of people, and people are sinners. They make mistakes. They don't act like they should. They blow it often. Scientists do the same thing, because, they are people too. I think oftentimes unbelievers make the mistake of assuming that because we proclaim moral perfection as an ideal, that we are then claiming that we have achieved it. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that doesn't change the truth of what we proclaim. A central tenet of Christianity is that humans will never achieve moral perfection in this life, because we remain fallen creatures to the end. We only achieve perfection when God glorifies us in the hereafter.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 10:54 AM

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 10:55 AM

Not these days they don't. :mad:

Exactly.

Ike

2/15/2006, 10:59 AM

I want to make sure at this point that you don't think that I am against scientific inquiry. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a wonderful tool and I am constantly amazed by what's discovered in various fields (yes, I try to keep up). The job of science is to explain how the universe operates, but it is not, and was never intended to, explain how the universe got here in the first place, or why it's structured the way it is. What I object to is holding science up as the ultimate arbiter of *any* truth.

Part of my faith entails the concept that the Bible and science do not, and will never, contradict each other. The Bible is not a science book (although it does mention certain scientific concepts). It contains many forms of literature which must be read in their original context. If we find through scientific inquiry that something is absolutely true about the nature of the earth, biology, astrophysics, etc., then we must read the Bible in the context of our discovery. Likewise, if the Bible states that a thing is absolutely true, we must adjust our scientific inquiry to not go down paths of falsehood.

Right now, the theory is that the earth is very old. Now, I would argue that is being called into question. But even if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, in the future, that the earth is in fact billions of years old, we can read Genesis in a way that is consistent both with the meaning of the original Hebrew, and with scientific inquiry. Genesis describes creation in general terms, but leaves out the specifics. God obviously did not see fit to tell Moses the details, because they weren't important at the time. Not that they aren't interesting to us now, but in the overall scheme of "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me", the details are kind of secondary.

heh. see, its funny because I used to think the same thing you mention at the end of your third paragraph back when I paid any attention at all to my faith...by the way, how is the age of the earth being called into question, I have not yet heard this.

anyway, since then, I just don't give it much thought, not because I hate the bible (I just like playing devils advocate a lot), but because my faith or lack thereof isn't all that important to me. just like in science, I see a lot of potential for people to be wrong, and to muck up the waters with an agenda when a) deciding that an old book is the root of everything good, or everything at all, and b) they try to interpret that. so I leave it well alone.

I do have a question with the notion of the not taking science down the path of falsehoods. What are you referring to. I'm fine with ensuring that scientists remain ethical in their studies, for instance with regard to embryonic stem cells, and the debate over whether those should be protected as potential lives. this is not an area one can touch on with science, as thats a moral judgement. we can only state that there is much potential in the study of those cells, and attempt to make up that potential in other areas if it is deemed unethical to use them....but other than that, what are you referring to. In the past, interpretations of the bible have led us to geocentrism, and other wacky notions that were only challenged when someone dared to actually look at the data, and in some cases afterwards, these fine folk were decried as heretics for pointing out the error in the popular interpretations of the bible....so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

but I completely agree that science never can be the arbiter of moral truths. never has been, never will be. All I was arguing before was that the nature of mankind is such that moral truths only exist within some social context.....but since the earth has a variety of social contexts, how is one to discern if a) there is any one set of moral truths, and b) which set is that? we can't do that scientifically....only socially.

(which by the way, differs from traditional moral relativism, which holds that there are no moral truths. I certainly don't hold that position....so the name was off....I'll take the fall for that, because you applied it to what I was arguing and I accepted it without challenge)

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 11:11 AM

heh. see, its funny because I used to think the same thing you mention at the end of your third paragraph back when I paid any attention at all to my faith...by the way, how is the age of the earth being called into question, I have not yet heard this.

anyway, since then, I just don't give it much thought, not because I hate the bible (I just like playing devils advocate a lot), but because my faith or lack thereof isn't all that important to me. just like in science, I see a lot of potential for people to be wrong, and to muck up the waters with an agenda when a) deciding that an old book is the root of everything good, or everything at all, and b) they try to interpret that. so I leave it well alone.

I do have a question with the notion of the not taking science down the path of falsehoods. What are you referring to. I'm fine with ensuring that scientists remain ethical in their studies, for instance with regard to embryonic stem cells, and the debate over whether those should be protected as potential lives. this is not an area one can touch on with science, as thats a moral judgement. we can only state that there is much potential in the study of those cells, and attempt to make up that potential in other areas if it is deemed unethical to use them....but other than that, what are you referring to. In the past, interpretations of the bible have led us to geocentrism, and other wacky notions that were only challenged when someone dared to actually look at the data, and in some cases afterwards, these fine folk were decried as heretics for pointing out the error in the popular interpretations of the bible....so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

For example, when the Bible states that a thing happened, science should not automatically assume that it did not. The Bible says God created the universe. For science to automatically assume that He didn't, is error. The problem I have with many scientists whose works I have read is that they exclude the possibility of supernatural occurrences or causes at the outset, using unargued, unproven assertions. This, to me, is the antithesis of the scientific method.

I've read a lot of articles on the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system, etc., and the one thing all the physicists and mathematicians seem to agree on is this: logic, physics, and mathematics all break down at the point of creation. We can describe the effect of the Big Bang using science, but not the cause. Einstein himself eventually concluded that the universe was one big effect, and as a result he took a different direction with his research. Now, to me, here you have an example of science being completely compatible with the Scriptures. Why, then, do so many scientists continue to rail against Christians for suggesting that the universe really does have a supernatural origin?

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 11:11 AM

That's a good question. :D

That's the problem with quoting logical dictums in a forum like this. You can counter somebody with "ipso facto sequiter reductum!" all day long, but for those of us who weren't on the junior high debate team that's complete gibberish. Leave the Latin at home. ;)

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 11:13 AM

heh. see, its funny because I used to think the same thing you mention at the end of your third paragraph back when I paid any attention at all to my faith...by the way, how is the age of the earth being called into question, I have not yet heard this.

anyway, since then, I just don't give it much thought, not because I hate the bible (I just like playing devils advocate a lot), but because my faith or lack thereof isn't all that important to me. just like in science, I see a lot of potential for people to be wrong, and to muck up the waters with an agenda when a) deciding that an old book is the root of everything good, or everything at all, and b) they try to interpret that. so I leave it well alone.

I do have a question with the notion of the not taking science down the path of falsehoods. What are you referring to. I'm fine with ensuring that scientists remain ethical in their studies, for instance with regard to embryonic stem cells, and the debate over whether those should be protected as potential lives. this is not an area one can touch on with science, as thats a moral judgement. we can only state that there is much potential in the study of those cells, and attempt to make up that potential in other areas if it is deemed unethical to use them....but other than that, what are you referring to. In the past, interpretations of the bible have led us to geocentrism, and other wacky notions that were only challenged when someone dared to actually look at the data, and in some cases afterwards, these fine folk were decried as heretics for pointing out the error in the popular interpretations of the bible....so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

but I completely agree that science never can be the arbiter of moral truths. never has been, never will be. All I was arguing before was that the nature of mankind is such that moral truths only exist within some social context.....but since the earth has a variety of social contexts, how is one to discern if a) there is any one set of moral truths, and b) which set is that? we can't do that scientifically....only socially.

(which by the way, differs from traditional moral relativism, which holds that there are no moral truths. I certainly don't hold that position....so the name was off....I'll take the fall for that, because you applied it to what I was arguing and I accepted it without challenge)

From what I can tell, that's a distinction without a difference. Any way you slice it, you are still saying that it's improper to claim any particular thing as universally morally wrong. I'm saying that human experience proves the opposite.

JohnnyMack

2/15/2006, 11:13 AM

That's the problem with quoting logical dictums in a forum like this. You can counter somebody with "ipso facto sequiter reductum!" all day long, but for those of us who weren't on the junior high debate team that's complete gibberish. Leave the Latin at home. ;)

Yeah, I never read Harry Potter either.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 11:16 AM

Ike

2/15/2006, 11:26 AM

For example, when the Bible states that a thing happened, science should not automatically assume that it did not. The Bible says God created the universe. For science to automatically assume that He didn't, is error. The problem I have with many scientists whose works I have read is that they exclude the possibility of supernatural occurrences or causes at the outset, using unargued, unproven assertions. This, to me, is the antithesis of the scientific method.

by definition, there is no room for the supernatural in science, since a) science is the search for an acurate description of natural phenomena, and b) you can never, ever, ever measure the effect of supernatural phenomena. you have to exclude that possibility, otherwise, nothing is measurable, because any deviation from what you expect might be a supernatural occurance. No theory could ever be disproven!

I've read a lot of articles on the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system, etc., and the one thing all the physicists and mathematicians seem to agree on is this: logic, physics, and mathematics all break down at the point of creation. We can describe the effect of the Big Bang using science, but not the cause. Einstein himself eventually concluded that the universe was one big effect, and as a result he took a different direction with his research. Now, to me, here you have an example of science being completely compatible with the Scriptures. Why, then, do so many scientists continue to rail against Christians for suggesting that the universe really does have a supernatural origin?

well, physics and math break down as we approach the point of creation, because you wind up dealing with the physics of a universe that our laws and experiments are inadequate to explain....yet. in the last 20 years though, we have been able to explain much closer to the 'event' than was initially thought possible through a broadening understanding of fundamental particle interactions. but we do not have a very good framework for dealing with the interactions of huge numbers of fundamental particles in a tiny, compact, space. mainly because that is outside of our common realm of experience. and most scientists don't rail against the suggestion that the universe has a supernatural origin...some even believe that it does. but you can't ever measure the supernatural. so you can't ever prove it.

Ike

2/15/2006, 11:33 AM

From what I can tell, that's a distinction without a difference. Any way you slice it, you are still saying that it's improper to claim any particular thing as universally morally wrong. I'm saying that human experience proves the opposite.

you are missing it a bit...from a completely objective standpoint, yes it is....there is no morality in a vacuum. human experience is not objective though and not in a vacuum., so everybody claims that some things are universally morally wrong. but there is no objective way to decide, when two morals collide, which person is right.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 11:39 AM

For example, when the Bible states that a thing happened, science should not automatically assume that it did not.

Science doesn't automatically assume anything--that's the whole point! ID is not science because it starts with an answer and tries to work backwards.

The problem I have with many scientists whose works I have read is that they exclude the possibility of supernatural occurrences or causes

Science is not concered with supernatural phenomenon--that's the whole point! ID is not science because it invokes a supernatural explantation.

I've read a lot of articles on the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system, etc., and the one thing all the physicists and mathematicians seem to agree on is this: logic, physics, and mathematics all break down at the point of creation. We can describe the effect of the Big Bang using science, but not the cause.

I saw a program about String Theory and the 11-D universe the other day, and a groups of scientists figured out a possible way to get around the Big Bang singularity. Just because sciecne can't explain something now doesn't mean there will never be an explanation.

Einstein himself eventually concluded that the universe was one big effect, and as a result he took a different direction with his research. Now, to me, here you have an example of science being completely compatible with the Scriptures.

Most cosmologists do not rule out a supernatural explanation for the universe, but their job is to search for a natural explanation because that's what science is. Invoking a supernatural explanation in a scientific argument invalidates it it by definition.

Why, then, do so many scientists continue to rail against Christians for suggesting that the universe really does have a supernatural origin?

First of all, some Christians aren't content to make a mere suggestion, are they? Why are these folks so sure that scientific inquiry is the enemy of religion? I guess they don't have enough faith. It's not the scientific community that's doing the railing.

Anyway, scientists (if they're honest) cannot deny the possibility of a supernatural explanation for anything--because it's supernatural. Again, science is not concerned with explaining supernatural phenomena because you can't do it; once you have an explanation it's not longer supernatural.

Even when/if cosmologists think they've got the origins of the universe explained that still won't rule out a supernatural explanation. You cannot disprove the existence of God, although you can disprove a literal interpretation of the Bible--and that's what really scares the fundamentalists, isn't it?

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 11:57 AM

P.S. I considered myself an atheist in high school, but I now believe there was some kind of supreme being involved in the creation of the universe. Not God as he's described in the Bible necessarily, but in some form. I guess you could say I believe in intelligent design (lowercase). So, did God speak to me or something and open my eyes? Maybe. All I know is that the more math and physics I took, the more elegant the universe became. Maybe God did speak to me throught the Euler Formula (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html), because that is some seriously profound **** to me.

I've always wondered if humanity invented mathematics or if we discovered it. For example, complex numbers involve the infamous i, the imaginary square root of -1. What good is an imaginary number? Is it just a mathematical contrivance used to solve problems, or does it have a physical meaning. I just started reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679454438/102-5724436-6344145?v=glance&n=283155), and the next chapter deals with this very question. Hot damn.

Some people find God through the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, or what have you, but God didn't wire my brain that way. Maybe he meant for me to find him through the square root of -1.

yermom

2/15/2006, 12:11 PM

could you be a bigger geek? ;)

i have to say though, there is some crazy **** going on right here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/EulerFormula/equation3.gif

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 12:13 PM

could you be a bigger geek? ;)

Yes, and I'll be nice and leave it at that. :D

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 12:14 PM

47straight

2/15/2006, 12:16 PM

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 12:16 PM

you are missing it a bit...from a completely objective standpoint, yes it is....there is no morality in a vacuum. human experience is not objective though and not in a vacuum., so everybody claims that some things are universally morally wrong. but there is no objective way to decide, when two morals collide, which person is right.

Well, there *is*, of course. But that proposition makes you uncomfortable.

yermom

2/15/2006, 12:20 PM

Word. I have always said that God isn't an artist, a musician, etc. He's a mathematician.

like math doesn't have a big part in both of those things ;)

Fugue

2/15/2006, 12:27 PM

Not to be jackassy although I do enjoy being that way, but is science afraid to look critically at the Big Bang because of the expected ID reaction if flaws are found?

Frozen Sooner

2/15/2006, 12:32 PM

Not to be jackassy, but did you stay up all night building that straw man?

Ike

2/15/2006, 12:33 PM

Well, there *is*, of course. But that proposition makes you uncomfortable.

it's not an objective method though. it goes straight to the beliefs, faith, and mindset of two or more conflicting worldviews/religons/schema's/whatever you want to call them. these things have very little in the way of objective measurable properties that can be weighed against one another, and a great deal of subjective interpretation of events and interactions, that require the comparison of subjective emotions and thoughts about worldviews in conflict. A completely neutral third party observer could not objectively weigh and sort out their differences without refrencing his own (most likely totally different) worldview.

we can all claim that our god is the true god, and that our morality follows from him, but unless there is an objective way to see which god really exists, if any at all, there is no gaurantee that if there is one set of universally moral truths, that any of us are even close to it....thats where things get tricky. because thats where faith comes in, which is even less objective than experience. So if your two competing worldviews are both attached to two competing faiths, of relatively equal strength, the only way humanity has ever resolved such a dispute is to go to war in the hopes of vanquishing the opposing worldview, or forcing its adherents to abandon it.

but there is no way to absolutely, objectively, know whether or not the losers were right or wrong in the first place. one can only declare the any set of moral truths right or wrong relative to his own set of moral truths.

Ike

2/15/2006, 12:35 PM

Not to be jackassy although I do enjoy being that way, but is science afraid to look critically at the Big Bang because of the expected ID reaction if flaws are found?
nope. case in point, what happened to all the anti-matter? according to the big bang and the known laws of particle physics, there should be a whole bunch of it still in the universe.

Octavian

2/15/2006, 12:39 PM

Not to be jackassy although I do enjoy being that way, but is science afraid to look critically at the Big Bang because of the expected ID reaction if flaws are found?

I see where you're going w/ this but the scientific community has recently made significant headway in debunking falsities and opening new possibilities w/ respect to the Big Bang.

Its way to complex for me to explain but M Theory is being hailed as potentially the most important discovery since the wheel.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

There's really not a good site on it b/c it almost takes a quantum physicist to comprehend the **** (and Im not claiming to grasp all of it) but, in short, it's the theory of everything.

It states that that universes (such as ours, called "membranes") exist beside one another like bread slices in a loaf of bread. When two of these membranes collide, the result is a big bang.

The matter inside one of the universes, or membranes, expands indefinetly until another collision occurs. Black holes seem incredibly simple and logical through String Theory (the key to M Theory) and could possibly connect dimensions.

If you're interested, try googling some more.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 12:41 PM

case in point, what happened to all the anti-matter?

Starfleet done used it all up.

Ike

2/15/2006, 12:43 PM

I see where you're going w/ this but the scientific community has recently made significant headway in debunking falsities and opening new possibilities w/ respect to the Big Bang.

Its way to complex for me to explain but M Theory is being hailed as potentially the most important discovery since the wheel.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

There's really not a good site on it b/c it almost takes a quantum physicist to comprehend the **** (and Im not claiming to grasp all of it) but, in short, it's the theory of everything.

It states that that universes (such as ours, called "membranes") exist beside one another like bread slices in a loaf of bread. When two of these membranes collide, the result is a big bang.

The matter inside one of the universes, or membranes, expands indefinetly until another collision occurs. Black holes seem incredibly simple and logical through String Theory (the key to M Theory) and could possibly connect dimensions.

If you're interested, try googling some more.

now if only someone can solve the equations involoved and make actual testable predictions with any string theory, maybe it will be the next big thing. or it might fizzle out as being pretty math that doesnt really explain anything at all. but we'll never know without predictions and experiment.

Fugue

2/15/2006, 12:44 PM

Not to be jackassy, but did you stay up all night building that straw man?

even though I am in KS, let's not start the Wizard of OZ crap. :D

No, I'm serious. If I'm a Big Bang proponent/scientist and I figure out that the background radiation is weaker than it should be or that there are other Redshift explanations, I probably keep it quiet for a time so as not to be bombarded by the ID folks.

Octavian

2/15/2006, 12:45 PM

now if only someone can solve the equations involoved and make actual testable predictions with any string theory, maybe it will be the next big thing. or it might fizzle out as being pretty math that doesnt really explain anything at all. but we'll never know without predictions and experiment.

Im sure you're more versed on this than I b/c what you just said is exactly what the top academic minds in the field said at their global conference two years ago.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 12:47 PM

now if only someone can solve the equations involoved and make actual testable predictions with any string theory, maybe it will be the next big thing. or it might fizzle out as being pretty math that doesnt really explain anything at all. but we'll never know without predictions and experiment.

From the tiny, tiny amount I know about string theory it seems to be all hat and no cowboy. Even if it can explain everything, it does so in a completely bizarre, abstract, and unsatisfying way.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 12:49 PM

No, I'm serious. If I'm a Big Bang proponent/scientist and I figure out that the background radiation is weaker than it should be or that there are other Redshift explanations, I probably keep it quiet for a time so as not to be bombarded by the ID folks.

No you wouldn't, you'd publish that **** as soon as you could and hope somebody else didn't beat you to it. Non-scientists seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientists do what they do.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 12:51 PM

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 12:53 PM

Ike

2/15/2006, 12:58 PM

I'm still waiting for Big Bang believing scientists to cause an explosion that subsequently creates trillions of life forms and other objects. As of yet, they haven't cause an explosion that could create any living thing. They never will because the idea is preposterous. Strangely, the ridiculous idea that trillions of life forms were created by an explosion is loved by athiests.
care to wait around for a few billion years? do you mind if we destroy the earth in the process?

we can create 'explosions' that re-create particles that only existed at the time of the big bang. you won't find them anywhere else in nature, except when cosmic rays collide with other particles....but there aren't enough of those in one place to make any useful measurements.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:01 PM

No. I just don't believe in the theory of, "Well, you see there was this big explosion that created radiation, then the universe grew and cooled down causing energy and matter to separate, and then, somehow, but we don't know how, all of this created hydrocarbons, and then, somehow...people, plants, animals, stars, planets, etc."

Sorry, don't buy it. Never have, never will...unless of course, they can get something to explode and cause life forms to evolve out of it.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:02 PM

care to wait around for a few billion years? do you mind if we destroy the earth in the process?

we can create 'explosions' that re-create particles that only existed at the time of the big bang. you won't find them anywhere else in nature, except when cosmic rays collide with other particles....but there aren't enough of those in one place to make any useful measurements.

I'm not asking for a complete reproduction, just one explosion causing one new life form will do.

Ike

2/15/2006, 01:05 PM

From the tiny, tiny amount I know about string theory it seems to be all hat and no cowboy. Even if it can explain everything, it does so in a completely bizarre, abstract, and unsatisfying way.

the unfortunate thing is that the same can be said of the standard model, which is really just a patchwork of Electroweak interactions and Quantum chromodynamics....plus this clunky process called re-normalization, which nobody can show is actually valid, yet is the only way to get rid of divergences (infinities) in the equations to arrive at measurable quantities....but strangely enough, it actually works! it predicts some quantities with astounding accuracy, like the electron mass.

but it also predicts the existence of a new particle we can't find yet, and without the existence of this new particle, there is no reason at all, within the model, for any particle at all to have any mass at all.

plus it can't say anything at all about how gravity works at the particle level.

suffice it to say that a lot of people don't like it, and we on the experimental end have been trying like mad to break it....just we haven't been able to.

Ike

2/15/2006, 01:08 PM

I'm not asking for a complete reproduction, just one explosion causing one new life form will do.
again, care to wait a few billion years? mind if we destroy the earth?

you aren't going to get life from the explosion itself. only possibly from the remnants of that explosion, and after a sufficently long time.

Fugue

2/15/2006, 01:08 PM

No you wouldn't, you'd publish that **** as soon as you could and hope somebody else didn't beat you to it. Non-scientists seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientists do what they do.

I agree that on the Ike type level, scientists are in it purely to get the right answers and I respect that completely.
But, I took an arseload of science in highschool and college and not once did I ever have a teacher/professor state that there were any problems with the Big Bang.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:08 PM

I'm not asking for a complete reproduction, just one explosion causing one new life form will do.

Big Bang Theory does not address the creation of life. Big Bang Theory explains, for example, why the visible universe seems to be expanding.

It is ridiculous for people to get their panties in a twist about something when they don't even understand it in the first place.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:10 PM

again, care to wait a few billion years? mind if we destroy the earth?

you aren't going to get life from the explosion itself. only possibly from the remnants of that explosion, and after a sufficently long time.

Right, so do we have any life forms created from the remnants of any explosions throughout history? Maybe some paper from last Fourth of July's fireworks have sprouted legs and begun mating with one another.

Perhaps a piece of a cannon shot from the War of 1812 is swimming around the harbors of the east coast. It'd make a good horror flick maybe.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:11 PM

Whose panties are in a twist? I laugh at the Big Bang Theory. I fart in it's general direction.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:12 PM

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:13 PM

Whose panties are in a twist? I laugh at the Big Bang Theory. I fart in it's general direction.

Even though you obviously have no idea what it is.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:14 PM

And even for all their flaws, theories like Big Bang and Evolution are still hands down the best explanations we currently have for the phenomena they describe...for atheists.

Fixed

Ike

2/15/2006, 01:17 PM

I agree that on the Ike type level, scientists are in it purely to get the right answers and I respect that completely.
But, I took an arseload of science in highschool and college and not once did I ever have a teacher/professor state that there were any problems with the Big Bang.
hey, I didn't know about any until I hit grad level physics. the reason is, that there is really no good way to discuss the problems without knowledge of the underlying physics.

stating that 'here we have this nebulous entity called the big bang, and here is, roughly, what it means, and here is the evidence that supports it' is about as much as you can tell a high school student without going completely over their heads.

and anyways, right now the problem with all the anti matter is being addressed as a problem with particle physics, primarily because nobody likes the standard model, and it does explain why some of the anti-matter should have gone away, but the phenomenon that is responsible for that isnt 'big enough' to account for the universe we see today....so maybe we are missing some piece of the puzzle at the particle level, or maybe there are other assumptions about the big bang that are incorrect. the problem is being approached from several different angles....but just the existence of the problem is not enough to throw out either the big bang, or the standard model, because we don't know which one has the problem...yet.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:17 PM

Fixed

Leave this discussion to the grownups, okay?

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:18 PM

Leave this discussion to the grownup atheists, okay?

Okay

Ike

2/15/2006, 01:21 PM

Right, so do we have any life forms created from the remnants of any explosions throughout history? Maybe some paper from last Fourth of July's fireworks have sprouted legs and begun mating with one another.

Perhaps a piece of a cannon shot from the War of 1812 is swimming around the harbors of the east coast. It'd make a good horror flick maybe.
theres this issue of magnitude...orders and orders and orders of it.

yermom

2/15/2006, 01:25 PM

I'm not asking for a complete reproduction, just one explosion causing one new life form will do.

you want physical evidence before you'll believe something?

that's rich

Fugue

2/15/2006, 01:25 PM

There's no point explaining all the holes in something to people that don't understand the basic idea yet. And even for all their flaws, theories like Big Bang and Evolution are still hands down the best explanations we currently have for the phenomena they describe.

The cool part of the whole deal is the problems. That's why scientists go to work every day, to solve the problems. Which is also why we should tell students that there are unexplained flaws. That, by nature, makes a person more interested.

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:31 PM

you want physical evidence before you'll belive something?

that's rich

No, just from people who claim "physcial evidence" caused the life of other "physical evidence" to the tune of trillions of forms of "physical evidence" all begun by some explosion they can't prove happened. It can't be done.

So, you either believe in it or you don't, just as you either believe in Creationism or you don't. No matter which origin theory you espouse, you're always telling people, "Yeah, just wait and see...."

The Creationism folk say, "Wait 'til the judgement day, then try to have you're little Big Bang theory discussion with God." The Big Bang folk say, "Yeah, well, you just wait billions of years and see if those fragments of firecracker don't get up, walk, mate, reproduce, etc."

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:34 PM

Okay

Have you been following along with this thread at all, or did you just jump in the last page? I am not an atheist--not a Christian, but not an atheist.

Ignorance is okay, but willfull ignorance is something else. It's fine to question science, because that's what science is about. When fundamentalists bother to question science they don't really care what the answers are. Preacher Brimfire says science is the debil, and that's good enough for them. Are these people born without intellectual curiosity or was it beaten out of them in Sunday School? Why is their faith so weak that they think Christianity needs protection? Or are they so arrogant they think Chirstianity needs their protection?

yermom

2/15/2006, 01:39 PM

No, just from people who claim "physcial evidence" caused the life of other "physical evidence" to the tune of trillions of forms of "physical evidence" all begun by some explosion they can't prove happened. It can't be done.

So, you either believe in it or you don't, just as you either believe in Creationism or you don't. No matter which origin theory you espouse, you're always telling people, "Yeah, just wait and see...."

The Creationism folk say, "Wait 'til the judgement day, then try to have you're little Big Bang theory discussion with God." The Big Bang folk say, "Yeah, well, you just wait billions of years and see if those fragments of firecracker don't get up, walk, mate, reproduce, etc."

maybe "believe" isn't the right work... more like "accept"

the Big Bang as far as i know only decribes the physical universe, if there is some supernatural thing that exists outside of that, there isn't any contradiction there that i know of

it's just a theory. if more evidence is seen that contradicts it, it will change

but who is to say that a god's creation wouldn't follow natural laws that we can observe now? nothing happens instantaneously, if the universe sprouted from nothing by some creator's hand, it likely would have started from some singularity, i would think

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 01:39 PM

The Big Bang folk say, "Yeah, well, you just wait billions of years and see if those fragments of firecracker don't get up, walk, mate, reproduce, etc."

PAY ATTENTION: THAT IS NOT WHAT BIG BANG THEORY IS ABOUT!!!!

DO YOU SEE THE WORDS THAT ARE TYPING OUT OF MY KEYBOARD?
(C) sanantoniosooner

Tear Down This Wall

2/15/2006, 01:42 PM

Ike

2/15/2006, 02:02 PM

maybe "believe" isn't the right work... more like "accept"

the Big Bang as far as i know only decribes the physical universe, if there is some supernatural thing that exists outside of that, there isn't any contradiction there that i know of

it's just a theory. if more evidence is seen that contradicts it, it will change

but who is to say that a god's creation wouldn't follow natural laws that we can observe now? nothing happens instantaneously, if the universe sprouted from nothing by some creator's hand, it likely would have started from some singularity, i would think

who is to say that the big bang couldn't have been the result of a previous universe collapsing upon itself the way ours might one day do? (if we find the curvature of spacetime is actually negative....)

you can't, and nobody tries to with any seriousness. nobody is gonna shed a tear if the big bang is eventually replaced with a model that more accurately describes the universe we see.

and since when did the big bang predict the emergence of life anyway? that would be the theory of evolution...the two are very seperate entities.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 02:08 PM

and since when did the big bang predict the emergence of life anyway? that would be the theory of evolution...the two are very seperate entities.

And even Evolution doesn't address the beginning of life, just what happened after that point. There is plenty of room for God and science to coexist. Humans and dinosaurs? Not so much.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:15 PM

First of all, some Christians aren't content to make a mere suggestion, are they? Why are these folks so sure that scientific inquiry is the enemy of religion? I guess they don't have enough faith. It's not the scientific community that's doing the railing.

Point taken, and yes, you're right, some Christians don't have a proper worldview and therefore go off half-cocked and say things that don't make sense.

However, I hold scientists to the same standard when they start claiming this or that about metaphysical matters, upon which they have no business commenting. Instead of simply saying what you did, that science does not deal with the supernatural realm, they decide they must state categorically that the supernatural realm doesn't even exist. It's a two-way street.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:20 PM

it's not an objective method though. it goes straight to the beliefs, faith, and mindset of two or more conflicting worldviews/religons/schema's/whatever you want to call them. these things have very little in the way of objective measurable properties that can be weighed against one another, and a great deal of subjective interpretation of events and interactions, that require the comparison of subjective emotions and thoughts about worldviews in conflict. A completely neutral third party observer could not objectively weigh and sort out their differences without refrencing his own (most likely totally different) worldview.

we can all claim that our god is the true god, and that our morality follows from him, but unless there is an objective way to see which god really exists, if any at all, there is no gaurantee that if there is one set of universally moral truths, that any of us are even close to it....thats where things get tricky. because thats where faith comes in, which is even less objective than experience. So if your two competing worldviews are both attached to two competing faiths, of relatively equal strength, the only way humanity has ever resolved such a dispute is to go to war in the hopes of vanquishing the opposing worldview, or forcing its adherents to abandon it.

but there is no way to absolutely, objectively, know whether or not the losers were right or wrong in the first place. one can only declare the any set of moral truths right or wrong relative to his own set of moral truths.

Christianity teaches that all people, whether believers or not, have an innate sense of morality that they measure everything against, and that it is the same for everyone, because it reflects God's character. It's where the conscience comes from. Now, it's possible to supress the conscience to the point of a) ignoring it completely, and b) not even knowing that you are doing it. But on some level, everybody understands.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 02:22 PM

Instead of simply saying what you did, that science does not deal with the supernatural realm, they decide they must state categorically that the supernatural realm doesn't even exist. It's a two-way street.

These people are in the minority (and I can't think of any prominent scientists that say that). IMO, strict atheism is wrongheaded. The atheists I've known haven't been science/math types, because as I was explaining before, the more you learn about math and science the more you go "hmmmmm".

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:23 PM

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:28 PM

maybe "believe" isn't the right work... more like "accept"

the Big Bang as far as i know only decribes the physical universe, if there is some supernatural thing that exists outside of that, there isn't any contradiction there that i know of

it's just a theory. if more evidence is seen that contradicts it, it will change

but who is to say that a god's creation wouldn't follow natural laws that we can observe now? nothing happens instantaneously, if the universe sprouted from nothing by some creator's hand, it likely would have started from some singularity, i would think

Word. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that God's creation would inevitably follow natural laws, because the fixed natural laws, being a reflection of God's nature, would infuse the entire creation from the point of beginning.

yermom

2/15/2006, 02:30 PM

so what are we arguing about? :D

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:31 PM

These people are in the minority (and I can't think of any prominent scientists that say that). IMO, strict atheism is wrongheaded. The atheists I've known haven't been science/math types, because as I was explaining before, the more you learn about math and science the more you go "hmmmmm".

Ah well. The whackjobs on both sides of the aisle seem to get all the press. :P

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 02:31 PM

Ah well. The whackjobs on both sides of the aisle seem to get all the press. :P

YES. :mad:

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:32 PM

so what are we arguing about? :D

Oddly enough, notwithstanding my discussion with Ike about morality, I think we may have reached some level of agreement. :D

Ike

2/15/2006, 02:34 PM

Christianity teaches that all people, whether believers or not, have an innate sense of morality that they measure everything against, and that it is the same for everyone, because it reflects God's character. It's where the conscience comes from. Now, it's possible to supress the conscience to the point of a) ignoring it completely, and b) not even knowing that you are doing it. But on some level, everybody understands.
and thats a valid argument to make, but it lacks objectivity. Which is what I was arguing in the first place. Which means that the only rational way to arrive at a baseline moral structure is through social interaction and the formation of a consensus that most everybody agrees upon. which still could be 'wrong', but on some level, we content ourselves with believing we are right because everyone we know believes we are right, and because its something that as a society, we have agreed upon.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 02:34 PM

it's just a theory

Oh man, let's not go there. :D

yermom

2/15/2006, 02:37 PM

Oh man, let's not go there. :D

don't get me wrong

i just mean that changes to it aren't feared by the scientific community, they are expected

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2006, 02:39 PM

I still want to know why "day" means "billions of years".

yermom

2/15/2006, 02:41 PM

back in my day...

i have no problem with "day" being roughly translated from "era" or something

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2006, 02:41 PM

I can run a mile in just under 10 seconds.

And when I say "seconds" I really mean "minutes".

OklahomaTuba

2/15/2006, 02:43 PM

So 12 pages gonna do it then?

Ike

2/15/2006, 02:43 PM

Word. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that God's creation would inevitably follow natural laws, because the fixed natural laws, being a reflection of God's nature, would infuse the entire creation from the point of beginning.
many people believe this. scientists, christians, whatever. and its a fine belief to have. the only people I have seen that have a problem reconciling this with thier view are the some of the ones that believe that God is constantly active in our everyday lives, since such a thing supports, but does not insist upon, the notion of a creator that was only active at the beginning.

some literalists are frightened by that notion.

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2006, 02:44 PM

back in my day...

i have no problem with "day" being roughly translated from "era" or something

If "day" and "era" mean roughly the same thing, then maybe "resurrect from the dead" and "got well from a really bad cold" do too. And maybe "water into wine" really means "wine that tasted like water was made to taste better by adding something to it".

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 02:51 PM

don't get me wrong

i just mean that changes to it aren't feared by the scientific community, they are expected

I knew what you meant, but "just a theory" is the battle cry of the other side. People need more science education, not just dumping stuff together in chemistry lab, but how real-world scientific reasearch is done. You don't make a name for yourself by confirming an existing theory but by proving it wrong. There are real incentives to challenge the establishment.

However, even science is not immune to politics. But that's the fault of the politicians and beauracrats who hand out the research money based on their own agendas, and not the scientists...not to say that there aren't petty political squabbles among scientists.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:51 PM

I still want to know why "day" means "billions of years".

It doesn't necessarily, but try and follow me here:

"Day" - in Hebrew "yom" (as in, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement). Hebrew does not have a separate word for "24 hour day", and "yom" has multiple meanings. It is used to mean 24 hours at times, but in other places in the Bible it refers to indefinite time periods or events, such as "the Day of the Lord". Sentences and stories are often begun with phrases like "in that day" or "in the day that such-and-so was King of Syria" or the like.

We use the english word in the same idiomatic way at times. People talk about what they used to do "back in the day". When people say "the other day" they aren't referencing a specific time frame.

"Yom" can also mean "era", as in the Book of Judges where it says "in that day there was no King in Israel." The time frame of "yom" is not defined. If indeed Genesis 1-2 is intended to be a poetic metaphor as opposed to literal chronology, then this use of the word "yom" fits right in. Now, I'm not saying that that is the correct interpretation, but it is one possible and permissible reading. And if our science is correct regarding the age of the Earth, then we would have to look at the Genesis account from that point of view.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:56 PM

many people believe this. scientists, christians, whatever. and its a fine belief to have. the only people I have seen that have a problem reconciling this with thier view are the some of the ones that believe that God is constantly active in our everyday lives, since such a thing supports, but does not insist upon, the notion of a creator that was only active at the beginning.

some literalists are frightened by that notion.

That notion is not taught in Scripture, in fact quite the opposite. God cannot be inactive. The whole creation only runs because He wills it. The "laws of nature" are a part of that. He's outside of time and space anyway...the concepts don't apply to Him, so to think of it in terms of God's being "active" at a moment in time and "inactive" at another is not correct.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 02:58 PM

If "day" and "era" mean roughly the same thing, then maybe "resurrect from the dead" and "got well from a really bad cold" do too. And maybe "water into wine" really means "wine that tasted like water was made to taste better by adding something to it".

You need to quit thinking of everything in your modern 21st century American English way.

Thousands of years ago, people thought quite differently than we do now, and language was used quite differently. You can't pigeonhole modern conceptions of usage into ancient documents.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 03:02 PM

Scott D

2/15/2006, 03:07 PM

You would only have that mindset if you don't read the Bible.

hehe, you need to go back and find our very very long discussion about Catholicism and the Bible, The best way would be to do a search on posts by Sweetheart Sooner. I choose to believe that the New Testament is a fallacy, and that only the Old Testament is relevant.

Mjcpr

2/15/2006, 03:09 PM

Okay, I'm upping the ante.

10 pages.

What do I win?

Pricetag

2/15/2006, 03:10 PM

I laugh at the Big Bang Theory. I fart in it's general direction.
Now there's an explosion that could possibly create new life forms.

Scott D

2/15/2006, 03:11 PM

What do I win?

a date with Bryant Reeves, congratulations Pat.

Harry Beanbag

2/15/2006, 03:11 PM

Is it too late to get in on this thread? I haven't read any of the posts.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 03:15 PM

Oh, and BTW MD, let me just say that because of some of your earlier posts on the Bible, I misread you and branded you as just another clueless atheist, and for that I apologize. You are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person.

I am mostly clueless when it comes to the Bible. I get carried away sometimes, and what should be questions come off as accusations...if that makes any sense. However, the Bible is pretty damn complicated, and seems to regularly contradict itself. You'd think God could come up with a "Relgion for Dummies" for the modern age. Instead we have something that creates as many questions as answers--which is maybe what God wanted. I don't think we're supposed to blindly accept anything we're told, even the Bible. Or maybe especially the Bible and anything else purporting to be the word of God. Why do we need a book to learn about God when he can talk to us directly? Maybe our conscience and our own innate sense of morality is all the religion we need.

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 03:20 PM

Is it too late to get in on this thread? I haven't read any of the posts.

I suggest incorporating some or all of the follwing words: "Rebubz", "Fascists", "Dims", "Libz", "atheist", "bible thumper".

Combinations are encouraged: "Fascist atheist", "bible thumper Libz", etc.

Harry Beanbag

2/15/2006, 03:22 PM

I suggest incorporating some or all of the follwing words: "Rebubz", "Fascists", "Dims", "Libz", "atheist", "bible thumper".

Combinations are encouraged: "Fascist atheist", "bible thumper Libz", etc.

Thanks for the advice, but I've decided that I just don't have the energy to wade into this one. :)

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 03:24 PM

Thanks for the advice, but I've decided that I just don't have the energy to wade into this one. :)

Actually, things have calmed down quite a bit and a lot of consensus has been reached.

Of course, Tuba hasn't been seen for several pages now....

yermom

2/15/2006, 03:48 PM

Ike

2/15/2006, 03:50 PM

what ever happened to "humper"?
damn...I had almost forgotten about db/bd

mdklatt

2/15/2006, 03:51 PM

what ever happened to "humper"?

I thought that was only for Stanley1/Howzit/DC threads.

Pricetag

2/15/2006, 04:06 PM

damn...I had almost forgotten about db/bd
The Texas game must have done him in. He hasn't visited since the middle of October.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 04:20 PM

I am mostly clueless when it comes to the Bible. I get carried away sometimes, and what should be questions come off as accusations...if that makes any sense. However, the Bible is pretty damn complicated, and seems to regularly contradict itself. You'd think God could come up with a "Relgion for Dummies" for the modern age. Instead we have something that creates as many questions as answers--which is maybe what God wanted. I don't think we're supposed to blindly accept anything we're told, even the Bible. Or maybe especially the Bible and anything else purporting to be the word of God. Why do we need a book to learn about God when he can talk to us directly? Maybe our conscience and our own innate sense of morality is all the religion we need.

Having the Bible explained to you by someone who's studied it for a living and knows what they're talking about is the greatest thing. That's generally what pastors are supposed to be. Sadly, many of them are not.

And be clear about this: God does not want us to accept anything blindly. Faith is not blind. On the contrary, it's always equated with seeing. Our faith is not supposed to be irrational, and investigation and study are not only encouraged, but commanded. God loves human knowledge and understanding. It glorifies Him. Look at King Solomon. What did he ask God for? Not wealth, women, or a big army. He wanted wisdom, and God approved.

Now, Solomon eventually did get the wealth, women, and a big army. And when he got them, they messed him up big time. He even began to idolize his own mental faculties. And at the end of his life, he regretted all of his "stuff" and his excesses, even his excesses of knowledge (that's what the Book of Ecclesiastes is about). But the one thing he rightly treasured was his knowledge of God, the universe, and his place in it.

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 05:00 PM

500

handcrafted

2/15/2006, 05:01 PM

posts...sorry, it just didn't look right. (OC)

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2006, 07:12 PM

I am mostly clueless when it comes to the Bible. I get carried away sometimes, and what should be questions come off as accusations...if that makes any sense. However, the Bible is pretty damn complicated, and seems to regularly contradict itself. You'd think God could come up with a "Relgion for Dummies" for the modern age. Instead we have something that creates as many questions as answers--which is maybe what God wanted. I don't think we're supposed to blindly accept anything we're told, even the Bible. Or maybe especially the Bible and anything else purporting to be the word of God. Why do we need a book to learn about God when he can talk to us directly? Maybe our conscience and our own innate sense of morality is all the religion we need.

I was gonna go with the wise cracks, but I'll restrain myself. They're usually not all that funny anyway.

The truth is that the Bible *is* confusing and *is* wide-open for interpretation. It has to be, otherwise it doesn't make sense. To see exactly how wide-open the interpretation *is*, just look at all of the religions that are based, in whole or in part, on the Bible. How can you have such disparate religions all teaching from the same book? Because you can literally make that book say anything you want it to. It is the height of arrogance for anyone to proclaim that they have "correctly" interpreted the entire Bible and they alone know the "true" will of God.

Jerk

2/15/2006, 07:20 PM

If you haven't read the Bible, at least read Mathew, Mark, Luke, and especially, John. 4 short books. I don't understand how someone can make fun of the Bible without reading it first.

Anyway,I was amazed at how the teachings of Christ relatated to this day in age, even my own feelings. It is relevant.

I don't think the Bible is really confusing at all. I think it's very simple.

Adam brought sin and death to the world by disobeying God after Satan said "you shall surely not die"

Jesus died in our place, because forgiveness of sins require a sacrifice of an innocent...in the Old TEstament, to teach the Israelies that sin causes innocent death, so they sacrificed a lamb.

Jesus would become that Lamb and die once and for all. Our bodies are corrupt, so all men will die once. Then in the future, Jesus returns and the dead are resserrected, and either forgiven and given eternal life or judged and destroyed.

Stoop Dawg

2/15/2006, 07:32 PM

I don't think the Bible is really confusing at all. I think it's very simple.

Adam brought sin and death to the world by disobeying God after Satan said "you shall surely not die".

You didn't start at the beginning. Where did this "Satan" come from?

And yes, that is a leading question which ultimately cannot be answered. At least not without taking some liberties regarding interpretation of the Bible.

No offense, but the Bible is only simple if you hear it preached from a pulpit and take it at face value. As soon as you start asking some very basic questions, it gets edgy fast.

Jesus would become that Lamb and die once and for all. Our bodies are corrupt, so all men will die once. Then in the future, Jesus returns and the dead are resserrected, and either forgiven and given eternal life or judged and destroyed.

Then what?