|
Post by evanschaible on May 31, 2006 14:18:30 GMT -5
Now under these guidelines this debate will commence: BibleBurner: No secular literature (philosophy, psychology, archeology, paleantology, etc.) Nothing secular. evanschaible: No biblical references. ------------------------------------------------------------- So under these guidelines I present this argument. Morals can come from no where else but God. This is not in any way a Biblical reference. And if you seperate morals from God than morals become relative. To set forth this example let me offer to you this scenario: Lets say that I feel that it is moral to rape your mother. However your mother feels otherwise. But it doesnt matter what your mother feels because morals are relative and that is right for me. Henceforth the police cannot arrest me; The courts cannot convict me; The jail cannot hold me. Despite the courts telling me that rape is wrong, to me it is right. Despite the police officers desire to prosecute, it is right to me. Under this example you can plainly see that morals are not relative. No matter what I say, rape is wrong. Why? A society with moral relatives will fall because 1) The law will lose its purpose 2) Punishment would be impossible 3) anarchy would commence because every man can do what is right in his own eyes. So I ask you, where do moral standards come from?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 31, 2006 14:29:25 GMT -5
Under the law, it is wrong.
The purpose of laws are not morals, but control and order.
These two don't work from what I concluded from your first reason for society falling.
Moral standards? Pain. Generally, if it hurts you, don't do it to someone else. If it hurts to beat someone's head against the wall, a conscience(sp? I always miss this one) of sorts makes you feel bad about it. It's all in your head.
One of the good things in the bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I like that.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 31, 2006 14:53:04 GMT -5
Not so. If you notice, many of the supreme court debates at this point are moral (homosexuality, abortion, etc.). Law, in its most purest sense, is morality. Order naturally comes from a moral society. Control does not come from laws, but the enforcement of them.
So now, answer numbers two and three if you will.
My friend you have already broken the rules, but I will let it slide this once. This argument comes from philosophy viz. 'you can swing your fist as long as it does not hit someones face.'
You must realize that every immoral act hits God square in the face.
Okay then, where does the conscience come from? The argument that states it is shaped by society is an unloaded gun. You can go to the farthest reaches of the earth, with the least human contact, and they no it is wrong to lie, steal, rape, murder, etc. They may not listen to the dictates of their conscience, but they still have the knowledge it is wrong.
Ah yes, the words of my Lord. But unfortunately for you, you cannot only accept one or two statements from the Bible my friend, it is either absolute or obsolete.
You still have offered me know conrete evidence that morals come from any other source than God.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 31, 2006 15:02:33 GMT -5
Ah, but these morals come from that book, the bible. These laws are based on that book. Also, fear is quite a powerful control/order tactic. It may not be moral, but it works. Problem is you might have rebellions and whatnot, from the public, but thats goverments, lets not get into them.
One could conjecture evolution of the human mind.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 31, 2006 15:13:52 GMT -5
1) You name me one law that isnt based upon the Bible. 2) You are exactly right, fear is a mighty hand of control. However, this supports my side; Fear comes from the knowledge that the law,if broken, holds with it consequence. 3) You will always have the rebel; that is unavoidable. With rules, comes rebels. The problem is the only person that rebels is the crook that wants to break the law. The moral person who abides by the law does not break it. Consequently you must be morally upright to keep a law, therefore law is morality. 4) You are dodging the question.
One could bring to light the fualty theory of evolution of the mind, but the one who mentioned that is under strict guidelines as to the material that can be accessed.
Again the original question has been avoided.
Where do moral standards come from?
So, would you like to recant your rediculous circular argumentation comment in the other thread and commence heretofore in a civil debate. I will use the Bible and logic; You can use anything you like.
What do you say?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 31, 2006 15:40:12 GMT -5
ugh. evan, you break your own rules...which isn't surprising for a christian.
you say you will not use biblical references in your argument, yet you said, "Morals can come from no where else but God."
this is a biblical argument, because the bible is the only text that presupposes god exists. in fact, this isn't even a debate...
...between either of you--its a bloody shouting match. let us provide real information from here on out, or close this thread.
ok?
what is good evidence?
examples: archaeology, anthropology, comparative religion, linguistics, psychology, sociology, history, geneaology studies, etc.
funny thing. the sciences i listed above are mostly social sciences, and not the physical sciences that christians hate so much. use them.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 31, 2006 15:47:04 GMT -5
Tell me, what is your screenname? I dont think your name is on the title of this thread.
I used no Bible verses. You all tell us to not use circular argumentation but yet you can, you are hypocrites. You use secular literature to prove your point, and tell us not to use the Bible to prove ours. Hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 31, 2006 16:37:00 GMT -5
I was saying that morals, could quite possibly come from evolution.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 1, 2006 4:30:07 GMT -5
HSTN2983 is my pseudonym for everything, including AIM, although i am not even sure if you were talking to me. oh well...
you do not have to quote scripture for me to realize that you pulled that out of your beliefs, and it doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out that the bible cannot be used as historical evidence because it is a religion.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jun 1, 2006 8:22:05 GMT -5
HSTN2983 is my pseudonym for everything, including AIM, although i am not even sure if you were talking to me. oh well... you do not have to quote scripture for me to realize that you pulled that out of your beliefs, and it doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out that the bible cannot be used as historical evidence because it is a religion. The Bible is not only a "religious" book, but it is a "Book Of Many Colors".... meaning it's Multi-task-able It's definately a history book, HSTN... no one doubts such...oh, except for non-rocket scientists
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 1, 2006 9:03:11 GMT -5
Okay, lets run with this one. Show me where and how you prove that everything, including CONCIOUSNESS evolved from a primordial ooze pit. You may have pseudo science to "prove" your brokeback theory of macro-evolution, But incidentally none of your proofs hold water my friend.
Despite your blind faith in a THEORY; you evolutionists have yet to give any so called proof of where space, time, gravity, matter, the sun, the moon, etc. came from. It is easy to rattle off big words that do nothing but confuse people, make your theory practical.
How can morality evolve? Under your theory, through millions of years of natural selection (survival of the fittest) an random processes we have before us today human beings that are totally conscious of themselves, the world around them, and even have a minute awareness of the spiritual realm.
This awareness of the spiritual (heightened in some due to salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ), is what ultimately drives your hypothesis into the ground. If it isnt there, why do we debate? Because if it isnt there we would not have the intuition that it is or could be.
But despite that, tell me where morality comes from. It does not come from your antiquated theory epostulated by a racist, sexist, madman. Consciousness, which would ultimately have to be there before any morality of any sort could "evolve", simply cannot be brought about by evolutionary process.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 14:39:41 GMT -5
Before we go any further, I'm going to clear this up right now.
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. When speaking casually, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." [6] In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" – parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable predictions can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation.
In this scientific sense, "facts" exist only as parts of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is an observed fact and the modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.
Copied from wikipedia.
In plain english, it means:
1)Facts are true, no matter what you believe 2)Facts are the backbone of theories 3)A scientific theory(i.e. the evolution theory) is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable predictions can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation.
That means, this "theory" can be tested and proven true repeatedly in controlled experiments, or proven true through observation.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 1, 2006 19:50:30 GMT -5
So, are you going to go further and stop dodging EVERY QUESTION AND ARGUMENT I POSE.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 19:54:55 GMT -5
Im saying, we need to agree on the definition of a scientific theory.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 1, 2006 21:44:25 GMT -5
book of many colors? biblethumper, you are not clever, but you are getting on my nerves...god forbid that i should ever meet you.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 22:32:17 GMT -5
Put that in your prayers, biblethumper!
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 2, 2006 7:12:21 GMT -5
haha. i throw stones at xians.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 2, 2006 12:00:24 GMT -5
Okay BibleBurner, We agree that a scientific theory is that which is an idea, that one tries to support with facts. But regardless, it is a theory. So if we can move along so that you can address my arguments that would be good. I am starting to get the feeling you dont know what you believe, you can prove me wrong by adressing my other posts that thius far you have avoided.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 2, 2006 13:01:41 GMT -5
No no, a scientific theory is an explantion, based on the facts we have. We don't make an idea and support it. We get the facts, and make an idea.
The first method is what religion uses. THe second, is what sciences uses. Do you see the difference? It is imperative you understand this.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 2, 2006 14:29:27 GMT -5
Scientific Theory n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable" ------------------------------------------------------ Theory A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------- There I am sure we can agree with these dictionary definitions, can we not. So, Can you address my arguments?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 3, 2006 12:02:54 GMT -5
what argument, there is an argument?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 4, 2006 11:27:26 GMT -5
So, since we now agree to the terms of discussion, lets commence shall we.
1) Where does morality come from? 2) Where does conciousness come from? 3) Where does the conscience come from?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 4, 2006 16:20:36 GMT -5
Organization of brainwaves we call thoughts.
Memory
The thought patterns we show in our brains. Remember, not everyone thinks killing is bad.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 5, 2006 6:02:59 GMT -5
morality originates in a culture's need to organize and structure its society.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 5, 2006 9:11:42 GMT -5
for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. FYI: gravity is not a theory but a law... its called the "law of gravity" and not "theory of gravitation". if you have time for a quick read: wilstar.com/theories.htm(sorry to interrupt the discussion... as you were... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 5, 2006 14:48:01 GMT -5
Okay, This would naturally lead to the discussion of consiousness. Where all these things come from? They cannot just happen. Tell me, How do beings that evolved ever become consious of themselves?
Where does memory come from? Lets go to the beginning, where do all of these things come from?
Where does the brain come from and how exactly does memory evolve?
Everyone KNOWS killing is wrong, But you are right, not every one THINKS killing is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 5, 2006 15:25:08 GMT -5
evan, you are wrong, not everyone believes killing is wrong--and i am not talking about amoral people living in western civilizations.
do you understand the concept of western civilization? you are a part of it.
there are peoples elsewhere that do not live by the same laws, morals, or social constructs as we do. two such examples are still in existence today in the form of head-hunting tribes and cannibals. however, there was a majority of civilizations that have passed, risen and fallen through time, whose morals and ideas were nothing like our own.
this belief that your country, culture and civilization is the absolute truth is called ethnocentrism.
have you ever heard the term, evan?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 5, 2006 15:49:05 GMT -5
I agree, one hundred percent. But just because other people dont live by them does not in any way prove that they are not there. Amish people dont drive cars, does that prove they dont exist?
Wrong, because my "belief" as you call it, is not that of my country. It is the ABSOLUTE standard set into motion by the only God of the universe.
I am not arguing with you, but just because they dont believe doesnt mean that it is not true. Step out in front of a car and say to yourself, "I dont believe in cars", what will happen? Killing is wrong, so is lying, stealing, cheating, fornication, drunkenness; whether you, or I, or the third world headhunting tribe believes it or not.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 5, 2006 15:58:45 GMT -5
You're so deluded it's not even funny.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 5, 2006 16:09:16 GMT -5
Bibleburner, What happened to your intellectualism. It is funny that you will believe what you do, until someone asks for even an iota of proof, and then you resort to your insults. Why have you not answered a single argument with any kind of adequacy? Quote other people, do what ever, but I am afraid no matter how hard you try, you cannot prove your fairy tale. Not even with science. At least dusty has ameasure of decency (most of the time )
|
|