- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,810
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The process for myself with intelligent design is that after years of reflection than came total dismissal.
A hypothesis is not a theory until it is repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon. There are theories that explain them.
I don't disagree with what you said; I was emphasizing the difference between evolution as observed fact and evolution as a theory that explains it.Do correct me on where I go wrong, but I honestly can't see the distinction between that and what I said.
I don't disagree with what you said; I was emphasizing the difference between evolution as observed fact and evolution as a theory that explains it.
Hmm .. ok .. how about: Life is the observed phenomenon of the Universe making a memory .. which necessarily produces Evolution as the way of doing that? ..Ah, okay. Thought that I was wrong on something and was prepared to be taught something new.
Evolution involves a balance of agression and cooperation. The success of humans is a consequence of extensive cooperation. I derive my moral compass from that observation. The Sermon on the Mount, for the most part, reflects that. It's The Golden Rule to be found expressed in various ways in different religions. Thus my moral compass is derived from same authority as yours - an expression of humanity's inherent cooperative nature and a recognition of the limited value of agression, in your case expressed as the teachings of a messiah.And you are a moral authority because...?
That's all a fine opinion, but at the end of the day if that is all it is then there is no such thing as moral authority beyond one's ability to impose their values upon others. No matter how flowery and "rational" the language involved.Evolution involves a balance of agression and cooperation. The success of humans is a consequence of extensive cooperation. I derive my moral compass from that observation. The Sermon on the Mount, for the most part, reflects that. It's The Golden Rule to be found expressed in various ways in different religions. Thus my moral compass is derived from same authority as yours - an expression of humanity's inherent cooperative nature and a recognition of the limited value of agression, in your case expressed as the teachings of a messiah.
You don't gain the moral high ground by playing the God card in a game that doesn't recognise it.
It is an informed opinion. I find it interesting you focus on the aggressive side of human nature, by seeing things as imposing values upon others, when I specifically praise and affirm the value of cooperation, not power plays. You seem to wish to impose your values on me; I am suggesting that - regardless of their source - our values are very similar, and rather than looking for differences we would be better served by looking for similarities.That's all a fine opinion, but at the end of the day if that is all it is then there is no such thing as moral authority beyond one's ability to impose their values upon others. No matter how flowery and "rational" the language involved.
The notion of cooperation vs competition only works so far, because as soon as an individuals ends are not served by cooperation there is little reason to engage in such endeavors. The intellectualist approach to morals is incapable of overcoming the is-ought problem, even if dressing it up in pseudo-scientiffic language to give it that flavor. Even if there is an evolutionary element towards cooperation that hardly does anything more than describe a state of affairs and then unjustifiably shift towards a value-statement through a sophisticated nonsequitor. I have no desire to impose my values on anyone, simply pointing out that moral opinions are rather meaningless without some way to arbitrate where disagreements exist. Which in some form or fashion is going to come down to coersive force, whether that be ad populem, the "golden" rule(he who has the gold...) or pure and simple might makes right. Without a clear moral authority, morality is a meaningless concept.It is an informed opinion. I find it interesting you focus on the aggressive side of human nature, by seeing things as imposing values upon others, when I specifically praise and affirm the value of cooperation, not power plays. You seem to wish to impose your values on me; I am suggesting that - regardless of their source - our values are very similar, and rather than looking for differences we would be better served by looking for similarities.
Sidebar: I'm sorry you found the language flowery. I felt my choice of words expressed my thoughts concisely and clearly. Which ones did you find particularly flowery and, given the quote marks around rational, which parts did you think were irrational.
Really.The notion of cooperation vs competition only works so far, because as soon as an individuals ends are not served by cooperation there is little reason to engage in such endeavors. The intellectualist approach to morals is incapable of overcoming the is-ought problem, even if dressing it up in pseudo-scientiffic language to give it that flavor. Even if there is an evolutionary element towards cooperation that hardly does anything more than describe a state of affairs and then unjustifiably shift towards a value-statement through a sophisticated nonsequitor. I have no desire to impose my values on anyone, simply pointing out that moral opinions are rather meaningless without some way to arbitrate where disagreements exist. Which in some form or fashion is going to come down to coersive force, whether that be ad populem, the "golden" rule(he who has the gold...) or pure and simple might makes right. Without a clear moral authority, morality is a meaningless concept.
Yeah, look I get you're trying to put out a certain degree of magnanamity and build bridges but ultimately there is no fellowship between Jesus and Belial. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And no matter how hard naturalists try to incorporate morality into their schemes, ultimately it's a poor fit because without an ability to generate objective value statements we're all just grasping around in a dark cave and the only imperative is the biological imperative to pass on one's genes by hook or by crook.Really.
In reading your arguments I get the impression that human natural things that make us more human, things like compassion, empathy, love, helping the elders and those in need and so forth, things that are at the heart of the Human experience, because they do not meet some sort of "objective values" is than not a moral compass that we follow? And that unless something is written down as rules and regulations, that becomes the only true moral standard?Yeah, look I get you're trying to put out a certain degree of magnanamity and build bridges but ultimately there is no fellowship between Jesus and Belial. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And no matter how hard naturalists try to incorporate morality into their schemes, ultimately it's a poor fit because without an ability to generate objective value statements we're all just grasping around in a dark cave and the only imperative is the biological imperative to pass on one's genes by hook or by crook.
When I first heard of "intelligent design" I'd been reading up on "creation science" for a year or so and "ID" just seemed like the obvious evolution of "CS" that I rejected it right away. (At that time, I was not connected to the "anti-creationism" community other than through books available at the local bookstore chain. I wasn't reading the appropriate usenet groups.)The process for myself with intelligent design is that after years of reflection than came total dismissal.
For some, it is that they are doing stuff that God would not like and so they choose not to believe in Him. There are many videos where Ray Comfort ask atheists if the reason they choose not to believe is because they are doing something that God would not like. Here is just one:The point is sin is not the reason to go to atheism. In single Christians virgins are mostly non-existent. And they are still in the church.
The primary difference between our two moral systems appears to be that in mine I don't consider followers of the others to be representatives of Belial. I think we're done.Yeah, look I get you're trying to put out a certain degree of magnanamity and build bridges but ultimately there is no fellowship between Jesus and Belial. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And no matter how hard naturalists try to incorporate morality into their schemes, ultimately it's a poor fit because without an ability to generate objective value statements we're all just grasping around in a dark cave and the only imperative is the biological imperative to pass on one's genes by hook or by crook.
Welcome to reality.That's all a fine opinion, but at the end of the day if that is all it is then there is no such thing as moral authority beyond one's ability to impose their values upon others. No matter how flowery and "rational" the language involved.
I can't take credit for that, it's written all over Scripture. There are two kingdoms at war, and to not belong to one is to belong to the other.The primary difference between our two moral systems appears to be that in mine I don't consider followers of the others to be representatives of Belial. I think we're done.
Who here has claimed that complex, information-rich systems arise by accident?.Complex, information-rich systems don’t arise by accident, and pretending they do isn’t science, it’s blind faith in materialism.
That's Manichaeism. It's been extinct since the 3rd century. Something about heresy...?I can't take credit for that, it's written all over Scripture. There are two kingdoms at war, and to not belong to one is to belong to the other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?