07 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat's all the fuss all about, I wonders.
When using evolution as a basis for a worldview and not getting much other positive input, isn't rape and murder just part of the evolutionary process?
Here's a textbook definition of evolution:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
The TOE is obviously not a TOE:
"Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition".
You can't dispute change; it occurs. You can dispute how change occurs; that is a theory. The TOE does not deal with the origins of life; one theory that does, I'm told, is abiogenesis (have to read up on that).
So Halitose a worldview based on the TOE would be a worldview based on change, "everything changes" (go away that song), or, mutability, a venerable poetic trope--"the flower that smiles today / tomorrow dies" (Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) talking about himself as usual). Don't see how murder fits in there, more the domain of psychology no?
Fundies in future quit babbling about Darwin's TOE and reserve your righteous wrath for abiogenesis.
It's plain to see
the TOE's no TOE
(scientists I'd like to know whether the site I cited--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html--is worth anything).
07 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThis must be a weakling of a god who can't get things right the first time. This god of yours sure wouldn't be worthy of worship.
i never said he was my god; i am a weak atheist. also, i seem to recall your God flooding out mankind in order to start over. it would seem that He is the one who cannot get things right the first time. how does foot taste, Hali-toes?
Because it can definitely be used as an excuse for genocide etc. You think Hitler's views of the supreme Aryan and sub-human Jew weren't influenced by evolution?
and i suppose that no one has ever murdered and plundered in the name of their supposed creator? so you don't think that creationism influenced their views? your attack against evolution is misguided (in the same way that such blanket statements against creationism in light of the violence perpetrated by religious fanatics would be misguided). hitler was a madman with an extremely warped sense of morality. if hitler felt that evolution was a justifiable excuse for his actions, then he was wrong about that. the problem lies with hitler's personal ethical theory; that is what you should be attacking, which is even an easier target than the straw man you have constructed.
Using evolution as the epistemology of morality.
which is like trying to use your elbow to pick your nose. we agree on that point, no? so what is your point? evolutionary theory would not tell you that murder and rape are wrong, and it would not tell you that murder and rape are right. that's what ethical theory is for.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by RazzleBreezerThe OP is simplistic, and thus the range of discourse which can be extended from the OP was quickly exhausted.
Honestly, why is everyone constantly wondering from the original question? Let's stick to the original question please, and try not to use incredibly long words which are nowhere to be seen in the Oxford Dictionary.
People are now keeping the question alive by expanding the narrow confines of the OP. If it were not for this, the thread would have died long ago.
Now which specific words do you wish to restrict from conversation?
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by RazzleBreezerAs a scientist I'm not in the least bit interested in disproving god. I'm interested in investigating the physical world. If believers want to choose god thats fine but please don't try and justify god on the grounds of ultimate improbability...it sounds like a ridiculous twist on Douglas Adams
Isn't it obvious now that some sort of God exists? I mean Science has not yet been able to disprove religion so far. Also, the earth is so complicated that it can't be chance that it exists. Yeah, yeah I know that perhaps there are trillions of universes with every possibility of life and we just happen to live in the right one, bla bla bla, but if t ...[text shortened]... l enough to create the earth anyway. Can some atheist somewhere explain this puzzling conundrum?
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI cannot believe that anyone bases their moral philosophy on evolution apart from afew neo-nazi nutters, so please don't be a silly boy.
Maybe that's what it was originally meant to show. When using evolution as a basis for a worldview and not getting much other positive input, isn't rape and murder just part of the evolutionary process?
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI cannot believe that anyone bases their moral philosophy on evolution apart from afew neo-nazi nutters, so please don't be a silly boy.
I cannot believe that anyone bases their moral philosophy on evolution apart from afew neo-nazi nutters, so please don't be a silly boy.
Interesting. Are you implying that your understanding of origins doesn't influence your worldview in any way?
08 Sep 05
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloi never said he was my god; i am a weak atheist. also, i seem to recall your God flooding out mankind in order to start over. it would seem that He is the one who cannot get things right the first time.
[b]This must be a weakling of a god who can't get things right the first time. This god of yours sure wouldn't be worthy of worship.
i never said he was my god; i am a weak atheist. also, i seem to recall your God flooding out mankind in order to start over. it would seem that He is the one who cannot get things right the first time. how does ...[text shortened]... , and it would not tell you that murder and rape are right. that's what ethical theory is for.[/b]
I understand your perspective. I was just having a rhetorical rant at myself. 😛
I don't agree with your view that the Biblical flood was the wiping out of mankind on the part of God because He couldn't get it right first time. God created man perfect; man commited evil. The flood was God's judgement on mankind for their evil. Which I don't have to remind you is a free will issue.
how does foot taste, Hali-toes?
LOL. I guess I deserved that. 😀
and i suppose that no one has ever murdered and plundered in the name of their supposed creator?
Yes. The question being is it justifiable in the purist form of their epistemology?
your attack against evolution is misguided (in the same way that such blanket statements against creationism in light of the violence perpetrated by religious fanatics would be misguided). hitler was a madman with an extremely warped sense of morality. if hitler felt that evolution was a justifiable excuse for his actions, then he was wrong about that. the problem lies with hitler's personal ethical theory; that is what you should be attacking, which is even an easier target than the straw man you have constructed.
Okay.
which is like trying to use your elbow to pick your nose. we agree on that point, no?
Absolutely. Evolution is hardly a system from which to develop your morality from. But origins are a very important part of our worldviews, no? Here's a few conclusions I think I would be justified in reaching from evolution.
1. Man is nothing more that a complex array of biochemicals involved in the struggle for survival.
2. Morality will always be changing as we animals evolve. What was right yesterday, might be wrong today.
3. Ultimately it all comes down to what feels good. If it feels good do it.
evolutionary theory would not tell you that murder and rape are wrong, and it would not tell you that murder and rape are right. that's what ethical theory is for.
Yes. The question is, how many kids get taught evolution at school, and how many are taught ethical theory?
08 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo Halitose a worldview based on the TOE would be a worldview based on change, "everything changes" (go away that song), or, mutability, a venerable poetic trope--"the flower that smiles today / tomorrow dies" (Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) talking about himself as usual). Don't see how murder fits in there, more the domain of psychology no?
What's all the fuss all about, I wonders.
Here's a textbook definition of evolution:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
The TOE is obviously not a TOE: ...[text shortened]... the site I cited--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html--is worth anything).
Well surely morality would also then be changing: Moral relativity. Then we have no right in judging Hitler, because relative to him, genocide was quite acceptable. Imagine if Germany had won WWII, then today, by public opinion, killing Jews would have been morally acceptable.
08 Sep 05
God created man perfect; man commited evil.
Isn't there an obvious inconsistency here?
If a perfect man committed evil, then either
1) committing evil is consistent with being perfect
or
2) man really wasn't perfect
I have been through the free will argument many times and have argued both sides of it. So before going down that road, please give it enough serious thought to be interesting. Thanks.
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by telerionIsn't there an obvious inconsistency here?
[b] God created man perfect; man commited evil.
Isn't there an obvious inconsistency here?
If a perfect man committed evil, then either
1) committing evil is consistent with being perfect
or
2) man really wasn't perfect
I have been through the free will argument many times and have argued both sides of it. So before going down that road, please give it enough serious thought to be interesting. Thanks.[/b]
Not the way I see it. Here's where my rudimentary logic takes me.
- God originally made everything perfect, inluding love.
- Perfect love requires a free-will choice - including freedom to not love and freedom to do evil.
- Therefore, God did not create imperfect being. His creation uses (or should I say misuses) its free will to choose to do evil.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
08 Sep 05
There is a story about a professor at a college with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade them and to mock their statement of faith.
One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?"
He replied, "Yes sir He did!"
The professor responded, "If God made everything, then He made evil."
The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again.... proved the Christian faith to be a myth.
Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?"
"Yes, you may," responded the professor.
The young man stood up and said "Sir, is there such thing as cold?"
"Of course there is, what kind of question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"
The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold doesn't exist. What we consider to be cold, is really an absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there."
The young man continued, "Sir, is there such a thing as dark?"
Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is."
And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?"
The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world; those things are evil."
The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat or light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."
The professor had nothing to say...
Author Unknown
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterBeen posted and discussed here before. You brainwashed kids really do read from the exact same playbook.
There is a story about a professor at a college with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade them and to mock their statement of faith.
One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professo ...[text shortened]... thout heat or darkness without light."
The professor had nothing to say...
Author Unknown
08 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThen we must be very nervous indeed because if perfection requires that the perfect thing have the freedom to do evil, then Yahweh can do evil (since he is supposed to be perfect.). He may not have done it yet, but he could at any point. And more importantly at every point, he must have the choice to do evil. I have more thoughts on this, if you choose to go there.
[b]Isn't there an obvious inconsistency here?
Not the way I see it. Here's where my rudimentary logic takes me.
- God originally made everything perfect, inluding love.
- Perfect love requires a free-will choice - including freedom to not love and freedom to do evil.
- Therefore, God did not create imperfect being. His creation uses (or should I say misuses) its free will to choose to do evil.[/b]
Of course this is conceding to you that the ability to do evil is necessary for perfection. This can certainly be disputed. There are many things that I cannot do or choose to do. I cannot fly or choose to fly to the sun. I cannot shrink myself in size in such a way that I become a proportional replica of my regular self. I cannot choose to drink up the entire ocean.
I do not see why the ability to do evil is necessary for perfection, while the ability to do these other actions are not required.