Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Who'd have thought he'd have gone on to marry Jennifer Lopez.

Okay, now this made me laugh.

Originally posted by FMF
One would be forgiven for thinking you have chosen to try to land a mealy mouthed personal slight on finnegan's chin here rather than actually address what he had to say.

And guess what? My swing (as imagined by you) is exactly as effective as your own swing (and miss) at me. I'm not changing his mind, and he's certainly not going to change mine. In this respect, my post was rather germane, and YOU might be forgiven for trying to attack me without cause.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And guess what? My swing (as imagined by you) is exactly as effective as your own swing (and miss) at me. I'm not changing his mind, and he's certainly not going to change mine. In this respect, my post was rather germane, and YOU might be forgiven for trying to attack me without cause.

I thought the cause of my criticism was pretty clear. You think it happened "without cause"? 😉

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is that you getting frustrated and blaspheming or are you using my middle-name?

No I'm saying God by definition is an absolute moral authority.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No I'm saying God by definition is an absolute moral authority.

Which brings me back to saying...

So you believe in subjective morality then.

Because "subjective" means "being based upon personal beliefs and opinions"...
In this case the beliefs and opinions of a god.

This is in contrast to objective morality which is based upon observable facts and not
based upon the whims of one or more individuals.

All 'morality by authority' systems are by definition subjective.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Assuming life arose from non-life with no supernatural intervention, and according to the survival of the fittest principal, why have humans created the concept of right and wrong? And why do people feel guilty if they have done something wrong?

I suppose it all depends on what you think is "good".

Charles Darwin once said this.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So Darwin seems to imply that by protecting the weak and allowing them to breed etc., this helps destroy the gene pool and assumingly makes the human race weaker. He then says that protecting the weak a noble cause. Why? What is so noble about destroying the gene pool? If you have livestock, you will make sure that the "bad" gene pool is not allowed to breed with the "good" livestock.

Men like Hitler certainly did not subscribe to defending the weak. He thought that killing off the mentally ill and physically sick and preventing them to breed strengthened society and was "good" for society.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose it all depends on what you think is "good".

Charles Darwin once said this.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and th ...[text shortened]... nd physically sick and preventing them to breed strengthened society and was "good" for society.

That you have to ask the question demonstrates that you know nothing whatsoever
about ethics and morality.
Which makes answering the question hard as it would require as a preface a complete
introduction to ethics and ethical reasoning.
Unlike you, Darwin recognised that humans are sentient beings with hopes and dreams
and feelings that have a bearing on how they should be treated.

However I would note that while Darwin did indeed found modern biology with The Theory
of Evolution by Natural Selection., there was a great deal he didn't and couldn't know on
the subject and a great deal we know now that he didn't then. [after 150+ years of scientific
endeavour you would expect nothing less] and as a consequence we know now that most
of what he said in that passage is actually wrong. [although his sense of morality and ethics
is still good]

Vaccinations [for example] do not weaken or harm 'the gene pool' as we understand today that
succumbing to a disease does not [necessarily] indicate any sort of genetic 'weakness'...
And the very concept of such weakness is highly suspect.

Furthermore, in these modern times we are rapidly moving into the era in which Evolution
no longer applies to humans because we will be directing our development intentionally
through our own intelligent design... The first beginnings of which we are just starting to see.

Originally posted by whodey
So Darwin seems to imply that by protecting the weak and allowing them to breed etc., this helps destroy the gene pool and assumingly makes the human race weaker. He then says that protecting the weak a noble cause. Why? What is so noble about destroying the gene pool? If you have livestock, you will make sure that the "bad" gene pool is not allowed to breed with the "good" livestock.

It all depends on whether you value the human gene pool over individual humans. As you note many people (racists) value genes over individuals. God, it would seem, based on the old Testament, falls in the category of those that values genes over individuals and was in the habit of wiping out entire peoples because he didn't like their genes.

Originally posted by googlefudge
....and as a consequence we know now that most of what he said in that passage is actually wrong. [although his sense of morality and ethics is still good].

It is, nevertheless the case that modern society changes the evolution of man quite considerably. Its just that 'fittest' takes on a new meaning. Genes that resulted in greater survival five hundred years ago, may not be so beneficial today. The error is to think that what we might desire of humans is equivalent to genetic 'fitness'. It isn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It all depends on whether you value the human gene pool over individual humans. As you note many people (racists) value genes over individuals. God, it would seem, based on the old Testament, falls in the category of those that values genes over individuals and was in the habit of wiping out entire peoples because he didn't like their genes.

God, it would seem, based on the old Testament, falls in the category of those that values genes over individuals and was in the habit of wiping out entire peoples because he didn't like their genes.

So now you can read the mind of God?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So now you can read the mind of God?

No, but I can read the OT if I wish to. So could you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, but I can read the OT if I wish to. So could you.

I have read it and disagree with your interpretation of it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I have read it and disagree with your interpretation of it.

What is your interpretation of God wiping out most of humanity in a global flood? (Which didn't happen by the way).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What is your interpretation of God wiping out most of humanity in a global flood? (Which didn't happen by the way).

Lol, why does something that supposedly didn't happen bother you?

As with other cases of mass judgment in the Old Testament, the following points apply:

The people judged were guilty of very grave offenses
The people judged had the opportunity to repent
Righteous people were spared judgment
1. The world before the Flood was completely evil:

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain...Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. (Gen 6:5-6, 11-12)

If the world was full of violence, murder was presumably common, and quite possibly other forms of violence (beating, maiming, torture, etc.) were common as well. The population was being judged not for minor offenses but for the most serious of crimes.

2. The population at the time was not far removed removed from Adam and Eve. Their experiences had been handed down to the current generation, for Noah's father knew the story of the Fall (Gen 5:28-29); Cain's experiences were also handed down for several generations (Gen 4:17-24). Furthermore, Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet 2:5). The people around him would have seen his example and most likely would have noticed that he was building a large boat and stocking it with supplies; even if Noah hadn't warned them about the judgment, this would have been enough to provoke curious questions. If they had changed their ways even at that late point, they would have been spared (Jer 18:7-8)

3. Not everyone died; Noah was spared because he was righteous, and God graciously extended mercy to his extended family, even though they were not necessarily as righteous. It's worth noting that Noah's father and grandfather died shortly before the Flood (Gen 5:25-31, 7:6); possibly God delayed judgment so that the righteous people of older generations would die naturally of old age (cf. 1 Pet 3:20). However, innocence is not the same as righteousness; people (e.g. children) who had not committed either good or bad actions were morally neutral, as opposed to people who had consciously chosen good over evil. (See What about the children? in the article on genocide.)

Finally, God does have the right to take away the lives (that He has given) in judgment.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That you have to ask the question demonstrates that you know nothing whatsoever
about ethics and morality.
Which makes answering the question hard as it would require as a preface a complete
introduction to ethics and ethical reasoning.
Unlike you, Darwin recognised that humans are sentient beings with hopes and dreams
and feelings that have a b ...[text shortened]... through our own intelligent design... The first beginnings of which we are just starting to see.

So ethics is all about how we would want to be treated? You mean like the Golden Rule Jesus gave us? Yep, that is correct.

So tell us, would you want to have your mother abort you? LOL.

Would you want your doctor to so everything they could to save your life? According to the left, this is not going to be an option because it is just to damned expensive.

YouTube

This video demonstrates this kind of thinking. No longer will medicine try to aggressively treat those that are deemed "too far gone". And as we see with government run health care in the VA today, people are already being put on secret death lists if they are too sick to treat. Of course, this is all deemed for "the general good" so that more people can have access to health care etc.