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.
Well, there you go!Check the CF statement of faith. The definition of Christian is one who holds to the rule of faith and creeds.
Mormons do not. That is why CF does not allow Mormons to post in Christian areas of the forum and only in the world religions forum.
I haven't studied it, no - but I am certainly aware of their most unusual version of Christianity.Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs that Mormon's actually have? If and when you do, you'll find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words as Christians, but they instead pour different meanings into them.
Righto!No. It does not.
So, is it your opinion that not having or knowing a natural explanation, is how one establishes "intelligent intervention"?In an autopsy a damaged heart would beat out intelligent intervention as cause of death. The cause was natural, not intelligent. Science rules out intelligent intervention all the time.
Digital code in DNA for one.
Take it back to a start and deduce two possible causes. Intelligence or nonintelligence and intelligence wins out.
The problem here is not with the evidence.
Ignorance does not falsify. It is not our problem atheists do not like the answers.
You do not know there is nothing there to falsify.
You just assume it based on your dogmatic atheism. It blinds you.
Intelligent intervention can be falsified scientifically
Not really and neither is the opinion of a dead atheist. At least not scientifically. The asserted without evidence (Hitch) is not a science standard in the first place. It is the standard of a dead atheist attempting to validate his atheism.
Give you? What makes you think i am here to spoon feed you?
Right atheism explains nothing and does not require brains if defined as lack belief.
Most atheists believe that man is natural and being natural is amoral. Big-brained apes and inequality which naturally leads to slavery. Why not enslave humans if they are animals?
It explains both the origin of the universe and life here.
So it is a valid model even if you don't like it
Not liking does not falsify it.
Plane presupposes intelligent design, not natural processes. Why use ID to argue against ID?
How bout a plane happening naturally?
No.So, is it your opinion
A heart attack would be the conclusion of the medical examiner after examination and falsifying intelligent intervention.that not having or knowing a natural explanation, is how one establishes "intelligent intervention"?
Is that like thermal vents in the ocean the first cause of you?If yes, I'll inform you that that is how back in the day people concluded that Thor is the cause of thunder and lightning.
Tell it to the medical examiner. Just ignore the examples. You are not interested because you are dogmatically committed so let's not pretend you are open.Again, it's called the argument from ignorance.
We know more about code then we do about gravity. There is digital code in DNA. We can map it probably right down to eye color. The code tells us. It is there and we can decode it. What its its source? How did it initially get there? Intelligence or nonintelligence?Assuming for a second that we don't understand anything about genetics. Let's pretend we don't know how evolution shapes DNA.
Digital code. You need to falsify intelligence for digital code in DNA so have at it. The code has to be there before the organism develops. Blue eyes means a prior code for blue eyes. A code, a transmission, and a decoder. Evolution 2.0How does DNA establish intelligent intervention?
You don't need proper definition. That is not a science standard. It is something you ginned up. It's not like SETI would use it. We don't have a proper definition so the signal must be natural even if we break the code and find out it contains building instructions. Digital code in DNA contains building instructions. Complex codes evidence of intelligence. Can't have it both ways. We have the facts. You have the emotional reactions.If it is properly defined in testable ways.
You can falsify intelligent intervention. So have at it.Which you still haven't done. You can't test the untestable.
The claim resonates with reasonable people which exclude atheists. Dead Hitchens does not dictate science standards. The Hitch mandate is not science in the first place nor is it practiced consistently by atheists who believe the exclusive source for all life here is thermal vents in the ocean. Talk about suspending reason in favor of blind faith!Ow dear...
So you disagree then? You feel like any claim that isn't in evidence should be taken seriously? You feel like the burden of proof is never in the camp of the one making the claim?
That would simply be dismissed. Imaginary dragons do not falsify triangles, squares or math equations which exist outside time space matter independent of humand minds and are discovered not invented. The dragon would not exist by necessity. Has zero to do with the context of the discussion. It is a self serving deflection. Imaginary dragons do not falsify real hypos when dealing with origin of life and the universe. The author would naturally stand outside of His work like an author stands outside his book. That is just what Gen.1:1 says. Outside the universe, time space and matter.So, I take it that you can disprove that there is an undetectable dragon following you around everywhere you go?
It is impossible with certain types. Or the timing is off. So why should i be interested in digging a hole to China?Yes, I already noticed that you are not interested in justifying your religious claims.
Not really. There may be other reasons. Sometimes the discussions are of interest.You are content just making the claims, preaching them and believing them.
Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral. That is the real appeal to atheism. It is self-delusion because man is image of God and moral. We do not follow our nature, we adhere to laws which regulate our nature. You have not answered, just dismissed. That is not science. If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them? You do know equality is religious superstition and unscientific because man is natural and amoral?Please don't project your own moral bankrupcy on me.
You got a better one? The evidence is everything here. So you are wrong. An acorn is evidence of an oak. The oak is evidence of an acorn. A plan is evidence of the plane. The plane is evidence of a plan.It asserts without evidence.
It explains the origin of the universe and life here. Wrong again.It explains exactly nothing.
Wrong again. It stops nothing. Never has.If anything, it prevents a proper explanation.
Everything here including life is objective evidence. Just like an oak tee is evidence of an acorn. Absent the acorn no oak tree and absent intelligent intervention, no us.Valid models are well supported by objective evidence
So where are your tests for extinct mystery creatures and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction?and they are testable.
Your "model" is neither.
Its not unfalsifiable. Either that or you cannot falsify your existence because your existence cannot be falsified by you. Therefore your existence is unscientific even if it is true.Can't falsify the unfalisifable....
There was no point. Your example was lousy and does not support your assumptions.WOOSH!
(that's the sound of the point flying over your head)
Well if you wish to falsify intelligence then you would need to show a plane happening naturally. Absent intelligence. So have at it and don't say humans are a science stopper. Like you did above. It prevents further research. Like you did above. Or that human intervention is wrong because we do not know the identity of the human. Or all these other excuses. I gotta get ready for church. You don't mind if i pray for you, do ya?Planes don't happen naturally. They are human manufactured devices.
No. A heart attack would be the conclusion of the medical examiner after examination and falsifying intelligent intervention.
Is that like thermal vents in the ocean the first cause of you?
Tell it to the medical examiner. Just ignore the examples. You are not interested because you are dogmatically committed so let's not pretend you are open.
We know more about code then we do about gravity. There is digital code in DNA. We can map it probably right down to eye color. The code tells us. It is there and we can decode it. What its its source?
How did it initially get there?
Intelligence or nonintelligence?
You need to falsify intelligence for digital code in DNA so have at it.
You don't need proper definition.
That is not a science standard. It is something you ginned up
It's not like SETI would use it. We don't have a proper definition so the signal must be natural even if we break the code and find out it contains building instructions.
You can falsify intelligent intervention
The claim resonates with reasonable people which exclude atheists. Dead Hitchens does not dictate science standards. The Hitch mandate is not science in the first place nor is it practiced consistently by atheists who believe the exclusive source for all life here is thermal vents in the ocean.
That would simply be dismissed
The dragon would not exist by necessity. Has zero to do with the context of the discussion. It is a self serving deflection.
Imaginary dragons do not falsify real hypos when dealing with origin of life and the universe.
The author would naturally stand outside of His work like an author stands outside his book. That is just what Gen.1:1 says. Outside the universe, time space and matter.
Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.
That is the real appeal to atheism. It is self-delusion because man is image of God and moral. We do not follow our nature, we adhere to laws which regulate our nature. You have not answered, just dismissed. That is not science. If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them?
It explains the origin of the universe and life here.
So where are your tests for extinct mystery creatures and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction?
Well if you wish to falsify intelligence then you would need to show a plane happening naturally.
Absent intelligence. So have at it and don't say humans are a science stopper. Like you did above. It prevents further research. Like you did above. Or that human intervention is wrong because we do not know the identity of the human. Or all these other excuses. I gotta get ready for church.
You don't mind if i pray for you, do ya?
There is digital code in DNA.
What its its source? How did it initially get there? Intelligence or nonintelligence?
Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.
That is the real appeal to atheism.
If humans are apes and there is inequality then why is it wrong to enslave people or own them?
Garbage. if so then duplicate it.Simple chemistry.
Sure it can but why follow it?I don't see how this follows. Morality can easily be established as a necessary code of conduct to enhance the actions of a SOCIAL animal.
It is natural and amoral in nature. That being we are natural and therefore amoral. Lets not create group fictions which defy objective reality. Nobody outisde would reasonable have to adhere to your group fictions.Senseless killing is immoral for us.
No. Do you? How so? Are we judging cats now? Holding cats to some sort of moral standard? Gotta go.For a reason. Do you think a well-fed housecat that senselessly kills a mouse it doesn't need for food is acting immorally?
Nature is amoral and if man is natural than man is amoral.
I live just as moral a life as you likely do. I don't drink, I try to limit my false witness against others, I honored my parents when they were alive. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years. I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anyone or do any of that.
Why would you think we want to be "amoral"??? It would make for a horrible society if people felt like they could steal willy-nilly from each other! Jeez!
Seriously, if you want people to not think that atheists are sociopaths, try to convince your own side that morality is objectively important.
I am beginning to suspect that they really don't want to be beholden to anything except their own subjective preferences.
Not everyone agrees. See Philippa Foot on Natural Goodness.
Eh, it's the moral relativists' fault. Try to argue with them that morality can exist objectively on an atheistic metaphysics and things descend into madness pretty quickly. Positive emotions only matter situationally and even mental illness is only a problem depending on your personal values.
Seriously, if you want people to not think that atheists are sociopaths, try to convince your own side that morality is objectively important. I am beginning to suspect that they really don't want to be beholden to anything except their own subjective preferences.
Garbage. if so then duplicate it.
Sure it can but why follow it?
Really? I mean, in my lifetime I've seen SO MANY people of strong religious faith do the most horrific things imaginable. It seems that there is NO correlation between faith or lack thereof and the ability to do horrible, horrible things.
I honestly don't know where people get that idea. I really don't. It sounds like a cartoon at best and at worst as a hopeful lie to justify their dislike of atheists.
I have almost nothing but Christian friends and honestly, if I didn't explicitly state to them that I am an atheist, it would be REALLY hard for them to figure it out on their own just based on how I live my life.
By that logic, if you lost your faith and fear of god and/or eternal punishement you would start stealing/killing/living in hedonism?
Humanity seeks purpose. This cannot be ignored. As created in the image and according to the likeness of God, we endeavor purpose and see it in creation. It's not emotional just fact.So? Why must there be purpose?
Sounds like an emotional argument. As in, you're not going to accept scientific theory X, because you don't "like" with it implies or means. Or you "prefer" living in a universe where something else is true.
That's fine, but hopefully you realise that your emotional preferences have no bearing on what is actually true.
Perhaps you are correct. The above did not take much intelligence to communicate.That is demonstrably false. Off course, you might miss the demonstration if your head is firmly lodged into the ground.
It's about actually having physical evidence of origins from solely a materialistic worldview.huh? No idea what that is about.
The question is how we would go about determining what qualifies as "horrible." Assuming that someone has not been indoctrinated into a particularly virulent form of religion (which is unfortunately too common), most theists will have a fairly intuitive understanding of what is good and what is not.
Once you drop theism, however, Nietzsche's prophecy comes into play. How can the modern picture of virtue and goodness, that was born and raised in the cradle of Western Christianity, survive without it? I am not sure. A century ago, atheists were still trying to find a secular grounding for morality, but we seem to be moving into a feelings based approach which seems almost fascist in its insistence that my morality is right no matter what because it doesn't extent beyond me. (But then I can try to enforce it throughout society anyway.)
I have gotten that idea here, honestly. My social circle is pretty secular, but I generally don't have extensive discussions on metaethics with them. Maybe occasionally. Online, however, the dark underbelly of the atheistic movement shows its face, and it's about as disturbing as some of the uglier stuff that goes on in modern Christianity.
I'm happy saying that some of the most admirable people in history have been atheists (I'm a huge fan of Albert Camus), but the trends I'm seeing trouble me.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't believe that moral realism directly requires theism at all. I am a proponent of naturalistic Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, hence my link to the work of atheistic philosopher Philippa Foot.
Beliving in absolute morals and absolute truth is the thing that breeds fanatics and fascism. Not the other way around.
First I was responding to the above one sided argument and incomplete narrative. I provided the evidence that yes there was then as there is now wheat and tares in the visible Church.Just like the slave trade itself: started and run by chrisitians.
It is recorded and regulated. What you do not see is kidnapping for the purpose of enslavement since it would violate Torah law and bring about death for the offender. Besides you deflected. You never answered. I would like to know if man is animal and there is inequality then why is owning people and enslaving immoral? It certainly does have precedent in human history. Humans can forbid it via contract but that would not be universal nor would it rationally apply backward in time. Like you are doing above. Nor would it apply to cultures who consider the practice acceptable. Contracts are not universal and covenants without swords are mere words. No rational atheist outside the contract would have to adhere to those restrictions. It would be proximate to outlawing the use of horses to ride. OK they can do that in la la land but outside of that location they can ride horses anytime they please and the restriction would not take effect backward. So being atheist, lets not talk about ancient cultures because when it comes to morals the atheist is standing on air. Besides these are appeals to outrage and not reason. Outrage is no sub for reason.We definitely saw plenty of support of slavery in the Bible.
Like what? Slavery was universal in ancient times. If it was not addressed then critics would argue anachronisms because it is absent. What leads away from slavery is man as image of God, equality before God and obligations to God for life lived including treatment of each other and nature.That is one of the reasons we need to get away from religious justifications for things like that.
The history of the 20th century would indicate that you are wrong.
“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”
― Benito Mussolini
If you lack the belief that human dignity is of objective, universal value, you end up with Holocausts and Soviet labor camps. More modernly, you end up with the alt-right. If you don't accept as an absolute truth that there's something wrong with this stuff, then you're going to have trouble coherently arguing against fascism and fanaticism at all. (Without your own claims simply being an assertion of your own will to power, at least.)
I disagree. Look at history, its absolute truth that breeds pogroms, slavery, war and other horrors. Its the questioning of moral values that have made the evolution of modern socities possible.
If you think you have absolute truths the there is no point arguing with you. If you are open to always evaluating your moral stances then betterment of society is possible.
I am looking at history. Unless you think that the evolution of society is a "good" in its own right, no matter what it evolves into (which would be a bizarre claim to make), history is very much against you. Tsarist Russia evolved into the Soviet Union, and it was a human rights catastrophe. Human greed, fear of the other, and the need to control lead to horrors, not moral values.
I don't think you understand that certain things must be held as absolute truths for it to be even coherent to say that society is improving or growing worse. Otherwise, there would be no standard against which to compare it at all. If you are open to evaluating your moral stance that human dignity matters, then you could argue that eugenics is a step in the right direction for the betterment of society. This was common in the 19th century.
If you are going to be a nihilist, at least take your nihilism seriously. Don't fall back on the eschatological hope of social progress. With no absolute truth, there is nothing to progress towards. Society can never be better or worse. It simply is.
Im a value nihilist.
Read Axel Hägerström för my views.
I deny the existance of metaphysics and good and evil is terms without meaning.
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?